SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(Ori) 248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Rath, J.
BIRA MAJHI AND OTHERS - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
First Appeal No. 207 of 1973
Decided On : 16-04-1987

Advocates Appeared:
B.B. Mohanty, for the Appellant; S.K. Das, Additional Standing Counsel, for the Respondent

A lease of forest land without the previous sanction of the Collector is void under Section 4 of Act 1 of 1948.

Headnote:

FOREST LAND LEASE - VOID LEASE - SECTION 3 (1) OF ACT 1 OF 1948 - PREVIOUS SANCTION OF COLLECTOR - SETTLEMENT REPORT - REMAND FOR FRESH TRIAL - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their suit for declaration of right and confirmation of possession over schedule 'A' lands. The original lease was granted by the Ex-Zamindar of Kujang in 1950-51, and the estate vested on 27-11-1952. The State of Orissa contested, arguing that the lease was void under Section 3 (1) of Act 1 of 1948, which prohibited such leases without the Collector's previous sanction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the land in question was forest land and that the lease was void under Section 4 of the Act since it was made without the Collector's previous sanction. However, the court noted that there was evidence suggesting that the Collector may have granted general permission to the Ex-Zamindar to lease out jungle lands for reclamation, and remanded the suit for fresh trial to allow the Plaintiffs an opportunity to establish this.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Act 1 of 1948 applied to the land in question. 2. Whether the previous sanction of the Collector was necessary and, if so, whether it was obtained.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of 'forest land' in Section 2 (c) of the Act is inclusive, and the notification contemplated thereunder only applies to other classes of lands which may be declared to be forest lands. The disputed land was jungle land and thus unquestionably forest land. 2. The judgment in Collector. Cuttack v. Shri Atual Chandra Das and Anr. (1972) C.L.T. 106) was not evidence in the present suit as it was a judgment in personem. The settlement report of Sri N. R. Hota and the letter from the Government of Orissa, Revenue Department of Board of Revenue suggested that the Collector may have granted general permission to the Ex-Zamindar to lease out jungle lands for reclamation, but it was not clear whether the disputed lands were covered by this permission.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge were set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh trial. The parties were directed to appear before the learned Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur on 4-5-1987 to receive further directions.

JUDGMENT :

L. Rath, J. - The Plaintiffs are in appeal against dismissal of their suit brought for declaration of right over the schedule ?A? lands as also for confirmation of possession. The averments in the plaint are that an area of A.14.30 decimals of land had been leased to the original lessees by the Ex-Zamindar of Kujang in the year 1950-51. The estate vested on 27-11-1952 and rent roll was submitted in favour of the lessees by the Zamindar, and rent was also accepted from the lessees by the Anchal in respect of the entire land vide Exts. 3 and 4. While rent had been so accepted, yet in the R. O. R. published in 1966 they were shown as sthitiban tenants only in respect of 5.32 decimals as in Ext. 6 (schedule B lands of the plaint). Plaintiff Nos. I, 2 and 3 had purchased on 1.5-1967, 8.98 decimals of land vide Ext. 8 i.e., the lands excluding the 5.32 decimals in respect of which the lessees were shown as sthitiban tenants. On the same day the Plaintiff Nos. 1, 2 and 3 also purchased the schedule .B? lands from the lessees vide Ext. 9 and thus they became/16/annas owner of the entire land. Thereafter, on 4-6-1970 the Plaintiff Nos. I, 2 and 3 sold 1/4th of the schedule ?B? land to the Plaintiff No. 4.

2. Admittedly, there is no dispute in the suit relating to the schedule ?B? lands and hence as conceded by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, the presence of Plaintiff No. 4 as a party in the suit does not appear to be necessary. The dispute in the suit relates to only schedule ?A? lands, i.e., 8.98 decimals which has been shown as Rakhit Anabadi in plot No. 40 vide Ext. 30-A 3. The suit was contested by the State of Orissa and Ors. contending inter alia that the original lease granted by the Ex-Zamindar of Kujang, i.e. Raja of Burdhwan was void being in violation of the provisions of Section 3 (1) of Act 1 of 1948 which prohibited any such lease without previous sanction of the Collector. The learned Second Additional Subordinate Judge. Cuttack who heard the suit accepted such contention of the Respondents and without going into the merits of the case dismissed the suit on the preliminary point of the lease in favour of the original lessees being void u/s 4 (1) of Act 1 of 1948. Being aggrieved by such judgment, the Plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

4. It is urged by Mr. Mohanty, that firstly the provisions of Act 1 of 1948 are not applicable to the land in question and hence the mischief of Section 3 would not be attracted to the lease and secondly, even if the previous sanction of the Collector was necessary such sanction was there.

So far as the first point is concerned, he relies on the definition of the ?forest land? in Section 2 (c) of the Act which may be extracted:

2. Definitions:

In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context.

xx xx xx (c) ?Forest land? includes any waste land containing shrubs and trees and any other class of land declared to be forest land by a notification of the (State) Government;

xx xx xx

It is urged that since there is no notification declaring the disputed lands to be the forest land by the State Government, the bar contained u/s 3 of the Act would not be applicable. However, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents and also agreed to by Mr. Mohanty, the definition is an inclusive one and the notification contemplated thereunder only applies to such other class of lands which may be declared to be forest lands. In other words, the notification -to be made by the State Government merely intends to bring other class of lands to be included as forest lands but however does not control the forest lands which exists as such. The words ?Forest land? has also not been defined in the Indian Forest Act and hence meaning of it has to be gathered from dictionary. In 20th Century Chambers dictionary the meaning of ?Forest? is shown as a large uncultivated tract of land covered with trees



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top