NUGAPITIYA MUHANDIRAM v. SUDALAYANDI et al.

NUGAPITIYA MUHANDIRAM  v. SUDALAYANDI  et  al.

 P.C.,Kegalla,13,750.

Forest Ordinance, 1885-Rule made under chapter IV.-Clearing land for chena cultivation-Land at the disposal of the Crown-Evidence.

On a charge laid under rule 1 of the rules framed under chapter IV. of the Ordinance No. 10 of 1885, that the accused cleared a land at the disposal of the Crown without a permit from the Government Agent, it is necessary to prove that the land was cleared for chena cultivation, that such land was at the disposal of the Crown, and that it was not within a reserved or village forest.

Semble, per Bonser, C. J. The only intelligible way of interpreting the expression " land at the disposal of the Crown " in the interpretation clause is to read clauses (b), (c), and (d) as cutting down the generality

of the deflation given in clause (a), so that the meaning of that expres­sion would appear to be all forest, waste, unoccupied, or uncultivated land, which has not been expressly granted away by the Crown (clause 6), or in respect of which the Crown has not waived its right by issuing its certificate of no claim (clause c), or which has not been registered a temple land (clause d).

THE plaint charged the accused with unlawfully and wilfully, and without obtaining the permission of the Government Agent of the Province of Sabaragamuwa or of the Assistant Government Agent of Kegalla, clearing or causing to be cleared for chena cultivation the land called Galpilleheressa, being a land at the disposal of the Crown, and not included in a reserved or village forest, in breach of rule 1 of the rules framed under chapter IV. of the Ordinance No. 10 of 1885, &c.

Rule 1 (published in the Gazette of 22nd March, 1889) was as follows : " No land at the disposal of the Crown shall be cleared "for chena cultivation without a permit from the Government " Agent," &c.

After evidence heard for complainant and the accused, the Police Magistrate found both the accused guilty of " clearing a "land at the disposal of the Crown, to wit, Galpilleheressa, for "chena cultivation without a permit," &c, and sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 30 and Rs. 5 respectively.

The accused appealed.

Bawa, for appellant, contended (1) that rule No. 1, upon which the conviction was founded, was ultra vires of section 41 (a), for while the rule provided against "clearing for chena culti­vation," the Ordinance empowered the making of rules for only regulating or prohibit