Raiyats have ownership rights over trees on their land, and cannot be charged royalty by the government for their felling.

1. In this writ petition, under Art.226 of the Constitution, the petitioners allege that they are owners and in occupation, as jotedars, of certain lands situate in the villages of Charilam and Chasrimai and that a large number of trees of various varieties are standing on those lands. It is complained that though the Government has no claim or right to those trees, yet the forest officials at Charilam object to the petitioners' felling the trees and utilizing them for their personal requirements. The forest officials, it is alleged further, demand royalty from the petitioners respecting those trees and threaten them with dire consequences in case the trees are felled and removed without transit pass secured from them or without payment of royalty. Aggrieved by such illegal demands made by the local forest officials, it is stated, the petitioners addressed a number of representations, including the one dated 30th of March, 1963, to the Chief Forest Officer of the Union Territory of Tripura, but the latter without giving any hearing to them rejected the last one on 24-4-1963. The prayer made by the petitioners is for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to desist from claiming royalty from them and not to insist on their securing the transit pass before removing from their lands the trees after they are felled. Another prayer made is that the respondents be directed not to act upon Notification No. 12 issued under the Tripura Forest Act and Forest Rules as that Notification, it is pleaded, has no sanction behind it and so is illegal. It is also prayed that the aforementioned order dated 24-4-1964 of the Chief Forest Officer rejecting the representation dated 30th of March, 1963, of the petitioners should be quashed.

2. The respondents resist the prayers made by the petitioners on the assertions that the forest officials are within their rights in demanding the royalty from the petitioners, the trees being in the ownership of the Government, and also in insisting that the petitioners must arm themselves with the transit pass before removing the trees from the place at which they are felled, this being in accordance with Notification No. 12, dated 29-4-1952, issued by the Government under the Tripura Forest Act. It is vehemently denied that the Notification or any part of it is illegal. The correctness of the stand taken by the Chief Forest Officer in his order dated 24-4-1963, it is urged, is perfectly valid in law and sound in principle.

3. The first point canvassed by Shri M. R. Choudhury, representing the petitioners, is that the officials of the forest department are not justified in law in claiming royalty from the petitioners respecting the trees standing on the lands of which they happen to be jotedars. Shri H. C. Nath, the learned Government Advocate, does not challenge the fact that the petitioners are jotedars of the lands mentioned in the writ petition, though he did not concede that the petitioners have absolute right to the user of the trees standing on those lands or that they are not liable to pay the royalty claimed by the forest officials. The expression "jotedar", it is commonly admitted, is synonymous with the expression "raiyat" used in the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act of 1960 (hereinafter called the Act). In clause (s) of S.2 of the Act, "raiyat" is defined to mean "a person, who owns land for purposes of agriculture paying land revenue to the Government and includes the successors - in - interest of such person". The rights which ''raiyats'' hold in the land are precisely defined in S.99 of the Act which runs as under :