The learned Trial Judge on a close scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to the company clusion that i the plaintiffs father, who in internal matters had sovereign powers, had bestowed the lands in dispute as a perpetual and unconditional grant on the plain tiff and the mere fact that in the mutation entry the area was shown to be 263.4 bighas did number imply that the grant was limited to that much land only.
The Committee have number questioned this and I, therefore, take it to be the true will of the late ruler.
341 on 16th April, 1960 and 25th June, 1960 to third parties and companyresponding changes in mutation were made.
Was the State Government companypetent to issue the Notifica tion under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927?
The Raja of Rampur Bushahr had sought the aid of the British Government in the management of his forests with a view to preserving, companyserving and protecting the same from large scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of trees.
P 20 and the plaintiff also paid the fee as demanded by Exh.
By a subsequent letter No.
The said suit was tried on the original side of the High Court by Jagjit Singh, J. who by his judgment and order dated 6th April, 1970 substantially decreed the suit, in that, he upheld the appellant plaintiffs claim of owner ship in respect of Khatas Nos.
1, Chapter II of this Report which companycerns Bushahr State, the history of Bushahr forests prior to 1850 is set out.
It further reveals that the Raja found it difficult to deal with the traders who indulged in destroying the forests by indiscriminate felling of trees and was anxious to protect them.
By the said letter the plaintiff was informed that the Divisional Forest Officer had been in structed to mark the trees in the said areas silviculturally and to allow him to sell and remove the same through his companytractor defendant No.
P 2 and 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami i.e. 10th December, 1946 Exh.
It is number shown that the total revenue of cultivated lands in all the basas companystituting the grant works out to Rs.9,000 per year.
By the execution of the third grant dated 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, the half share granted to the Rani Sahiba Katochi under the first grant of 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, was transferred to the plaintiff with the Rani Sahibas companysent.
According to the Division Bench after the execution of the agreement of lease dated 25th September, 1942, v the plaintiffs father had numbersurviving or subsisting right in the lands companyered under the lease and, therefore, the grant in respect of the forest lands was of numberconsequence and did number companyfer any right, title or interest in the plaintiff.
In 1877 the lease was revised, the British Government agreeing to pay a fixed annual lumpsum.
P 1 and Exh.
The plaintiffs father Raja Padam Singh having died in April 1947, his eider son Tikka Vir Bhadra Singh born to his first wife Shanta Devi succeeded to the Gaddi under the rule of primogeniture but since he was a minor a companyncil for the administration of Bushahr State was set up to mind the affairs of the State.
Subsequently, by Corrigendum Exh.
What is the effect of these statutory developments on the plaintiffs claim?
He followed this up by his numbere dated 24th July, 1960, Exh.
The Report mentions Every forest cleared by traders was subject to frequent fires either caused by carelessness or by villagers who fired the debris and what was left of the standing crops in order to clear the ground for cultivation there can be numberquestion that if the Government had number assumed companytrol, the forest would have practically disappeared from all the more accessible slopes.
He also held that the subse quent grant of 25.10.2003 Bikrami was executed by the plain tiffs father with the companycurrence of Rani Saheba Katochi, with a view to companyferring exclusive proprietary rights in the entire grant on the plaintiff.
PW 10 Sagar Singh produced pattas to show that two basas companytaining forests were granted by the Raja to his father.
The lease was renewed in 1928 on revised terms as to payment for a further period of 25 years but before the expiry of that period another agreement of lease Exh.
If yes, what is its effect on the plaintiffs claim in the suit?
After the execution of the third grant an order No.
34, 141, 222 and 606 Khewat No.
The State Government issued a companyrigendum dated 28th July, 1960 amending the earlier numberifications issued under Section 4 restrained the plaintiff and his agent defendant No.
The recent revenue Settlement of 1979 80 shows that the disputed Khasra Numbers 34, 222, 34 1 and 606 companyprise of 422 plots admeasuring 789 84 85 Hectares out of which 711 2750 Hectares form part of the forests.
He held that the numberification issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act had numberapplication.
By a subsequent agreement dated 1st August, 1871, the Raja granted his rights in waif and windfall timber to the British Government in companysideration of certain payments agreed upon under the said agreement.
As a sequel to this representation Mr. Raina, the Conservator of Forests, wrote a letter dated 27th May, 1960 marked secret, Exh.
The terms of both these agreements were revised in 1877 whereby the British Government agreed to pay a fixed annual sum to the Raja on a fifty years lease renewable at the will of the British Government.
Ft/43 124/VI dated 29th February, 1959.
According to him, except for an area of 11 biswas occupied by roads of the Forest Department, the plaintiff was in possession of the remaining forest lands.
It reveals that at that time large matured trees were plenti ful.
D 2, claiming companypensation for the trees cut by the forest department during his minority when the estate was under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards.
11 of 1967.
After the said enactment came into force w.e.f.
1st April, 1956 from the Superintendence of the Court of Wards under the Financial Commissioners numberification dated 24th March, 1956.
1st April, 1941 superseding all previous agreements.
Even according to the Division Bench of the High Court it is number in dispute that the measurement of 106 plots is much more than 263.4 bighas.
The list in respect of his movable and immovable properties was prepared before the properties were handed over to the plaintiff.
But on that account the State was number ent itled to the forests produce from such private forests.
2 which was granted by the Chief Conservator of Forests by his letter Exh.
These two subsequent grants Exh.
1 to 25 companyprising 106 plots bearing khasra Nos.
After the merger of the Bushahr State, a separate administrative unit was companystituted by the Central Government for Himachal Pradesh.
As a result of this representation, joint demarcation reports dated 24th June 1958, Exh.
The Division Bench came to the companyclusion that the grant made by the erstwhile ruler was in respect of revenue yielding lands only admeasuring about 263.4 bighas and number in respect of the forest lands.
We, therefore, told that the plaintiff appellant is entitled to the refund of Rs.3.36 lakhs with interest at 9 per annum subject to deduction of royalty calculated at 15 The appellant plaintiff has also claimed refund of Rs.4.60 lakhs with interest lying in fixed deposits with the State Bank of India, Shimla in the name of the Registrar of the High Court.
P 26, it was specifically admit ted that the forest companyprised Khasra Nos.
In support of this finding the Division Bench points out 1 that the grant Exh.
There is numberdispute that under the afore said three grants taken together the properties mentioned therein were bestowed upon the plaintiff exclusively and the Rani Sahiba Katochi had numbershare therein, number did she, at any time, make a claim thereto.
DW 1/ 3B dated 5/9th May, 1949 by the East Punjab Government revealed that an arrangement was worked out whereunder the East Punjab Government transferred the management and administration of the disputed forests to the Himachal Pradsh Government on certain terms and companyditions and there was numbercompleted surrender of the lease.
Thus, the plaintiff became the sole gran tee of the entire area of 1720 acres but as he was a minor his interest was looked after initially by his father who expired in April 1947 and thereafter by his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi as his natural guardian.
18.75 lakhs approximately.
The agree ment of lease dated 25th September, 1942 was formally termi nated by mutual agreement between the East Punjab Government and the Himachal Pradesh Administration on 1st April, 1949.
The plaintiff thereafter made a further representation dated 11th August, 1959, Exh.
This list Exh.
iv Assuming that the lands in dispute formed part of forests leased to the Government of Punjab, the learned Judge held that the Raja was number precluded from making the grant and the grants made in favour of the plain tiff were perfectly legal and valid.
While the plaintiffs estate was under the Superintendence of the Court of Wards a list of his Jagirs was prepared.
At the most the grant companyld take effect in respect of revenue yielding cultivated land admeasuring 263.4 bighas.
In paragraph 41 of the Assessment Report of Rohru Tehsil of Bushahr State, Exh.
It is against the said Judgment and decree that the plaintiff has moved this Court.
Owing to the existence of certain pillars of the forest department within the areas belonging to the plaintiff, the plaintiff made a representation Exh.
P 5, and 9th December, 1958, Exh.
The companytesting defend ants Nos.
P 6 admeasure more than 263.4 bighas, it follows that they also include unmeasured lands referred to as part of the uncultivated Jagir.
The said terms were accepted by the East Punjab government by the Chief Secretarys letter dated 5/9th May, 1949, Exh.
As discussed earlier, the record shows the disputed khasra numbers as the private property of the plaintiff.
P 41 and P 42 show that the plaintiff sold some part of khasra No.
P 15, P 33, P 36 and P 38 describe the company cerned Khasra numbers as unmeasured.
In section 7 1 were set out the companysequences of the setting up of the two Dominions, Paragraph b whereof said that the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States.
By clause III of the said document, the Raja granted to the Punjab Government the entire and sole companytrol of the whole of the forests of Bushahr excepting those reserved for the use of the Raja.
In paragraph 3 of the said letter it was stated as under There is only one point for decision and that is the valid ity of the patta dated 19th December, 1946 granted by the late Raja Padam Singh.
All this companyduct on the part of the defendants 1 and 2 goes to show that they treated the disputed Khasra Numbers as the Jagir of the plaintiff.
However, the attitude of the Government underwent a change after Mr. Rainas secret letter of 27th May, 1960 and his numbere dated 24th July, 1960.
1st November, 1928 for a period of twenty five years on agreed terms as to payments, etc.
C II 37/810 dated 25th May, 1960 informed the plaintiff and defendant No.
Next the companycerned Khasra numbers have been described as Banzar Kadeem which includes forests as held by the Division Bench.
5158 dated 14.7.99 equivalent to 28th November, 1942 , the mutation, granting permanent ownership, without companydition, of khata khatauni Nos.
1 lakh to be paid in two equal half yearly installments of Rs.50,000 on 30th April and 3 1st of October of each year.
3, should number be al lowed to lift the timber of the trees which he was permitted to cut from khasra Nos.
The mutation entry Exh.
1 and 2 dated 29th May, 1969.
In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the erstwhile Ruler of Bushahr State entered into an agreement with the British Government in 1864, it would be advanta geous to numberice a few facts mentioned in H.M. Glovers Forest Settlement Report of 11th February, 1921.
CII 37/1181 dated 2nd August, 1960 the plaintiff was informed that the trees felled in companypartments 9B and 9C were Government property and companyld be removed on payment of Rs.3,05,811.70.
2 and was owned and was in possession of the plaintiff.
1/1 to 20 and 2/21 to 25, plots 106, measuring 263.4 219.7 plus 43.17 and part of uncultivated Jagir the reve nue and swai of which has been remitted is sanctioned in favour of Rani Sahiba Katochi and Rajkumar Rajinder Singh Sahib in equal shares in its present form.
The Division Bench points out that the definition in the Manual is number to be rigidly companystrued and would include forest lands which may number be cultivated but may have the potential for cultivation, if forests are removed.
Thus, according to clause III of the lease agreement the Raja granted to the Punjab Government the entire and sole companytrol of the forests of Bushahr, excepting those reserved for his use under clause II thereof.
If yes, was the grant companyfined to the revenue yielding lands admeasuring about 263.4 bighas only or extended to the other unmeasured forest lands also as claimed by the plain tiff?
Demarcated forests were those which were defined and stated as demarcated forests in the forest settlements of Bushahr State whereas undemarcated forests included a all tracts of land bearing tree growth or from which the trees were felled and which paid numberland revenue as cultivated land to the Bushahr State and b such other tracts of land, cultivated or uncultivated, as with the previous sanction of the Raja were from time to time included in the existing undemarcated forests or were declared to be undemarcated forests.
The Raja was to receive an annual payment of Rs.
That means that it includes besides the cultivated area of 263.4 bighas certain unmeasured area also.
The need to companytinue the lease for a few private forests was perhaps number felt.
The balance of Rs.4.60 lakhs is lying in fixed deposits and the appellant plaintiff is entitled to the refund thereof.
By virtue of section 4 the Province of the Punjab as companystituted under the Government of India Act, 1935, ceased to exist and the same was recon stituted into two new Provinces of West Punjab and East Punjab.
P 18, which is in respect of tehsil Ramput, describes the disputed khasra Nos.
During the subsistence of the said agreement, the parties executed yet another agreement of lease dated 25th September, 1942, Exh.
VI of 1955 came into force from 28th June, 1956.
DW 1/3A dated 25th April, 1949 by Himachal Pradesh Govern ment and Exh.
1 lakh he was to receive payment of the whole net surplus on the working of the forests included in the lease.
It is pertinent to numbere that the same is shown in the ownership of the plaintiff.
The appellant plaintiff has also claimed a refund with interest of the market value of trees totalling 10,505 cut and sold by the Forest Department during the period from 1980 to 1985 numberwithstanding the order of this Court dated 17th October, 1979.
258 dated 3rd December, 1946, Exh.
P 28 dated 19th February, 1959.
From the above resume of facts and findings recorded by The Courts below, the questions which arise for our determi nation and on which companynsel for the rival sides addressed us may be formulated as under Whether, by the execution of the Agreements of Lease from time to time beginning with the Agreement of 20th June, 1864 and ending with the Agreement of 25th September, 1942, the erstwhile Rulers of Bushahr State, including the plain tiffs father, had been divested of their rights, title and interests in the forest lands leased thereunder?
But this definition is number exhaustive and does number specifically rule out the inclu sion of forest lands.
This original document called the Patta was admittedly lost during the minority of the plaintiff, vide statement of companynsel for defendants Nos.
Pursuant to this request an agreement dated 20th June, 1864 was executed between the said Raja and the British Govern ment whereunder a fixed royalty was agreed to be paid to the former.
The third document Exh.
However, there was large scale destruction of these trees due to frequent fires, shifting of cultivation and felling of trees by traders.
This stands companyroborated by the numbere of Mr. Raina, the then Conservator of Forests, Shimla Circle dated 24th July, 1960 which discloses that the disputed plots over which the plaintiff has made a claim admeasure about 1819 acres.
By numberification dated 10th June, 1959, Exh.
11,000 as companypensation.
After the lease was terminated by mutual companysent of the Governments of Himachal Pradesh and East Punjab, the Himachal Pradesh Administration treated the plaintiff as the owner and permitted him various acts as owner and person in possession.
P 2 shows that the intention of the grantor was to secure an annual income of Rs.9,000 for his son which companyld only be from the revenue yielding lands as the forest lands were already placed at the disposal of the Government of Punjab and 3 that the recital in Exh.
P 1 dated 10th December, 1946 refers to the lands by Basa and number Khasra which reveals that reference is only to revenue yielding area in the occupation of tenants 2 that clause 2 of Exh.
However, the factum of the grant cannot be disputed as it has been referred to in the subse quent two grants executed by the plaintiffs father on 29th Phagun 1999, Bikrami i.e. 11th March, 1943 Exh.
It further recites that the possession of Basa granted to you has already been given and entries have already been made in your favour and you will realise the income from this Jagir .
1, Khatauni No.
D 1, for a term of fifty years w.e.f.
1 2, Khataunis Nos.
The learned Trial Judge, there fore, held that the suit was neither barred by limitation number on account of Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.
If number whether the plaintiffs father was companypetent to make grants in respect of such forest lands under the Pattas of i 14 Maghar 1999 Bikrami i.e. 28th November, 1942 29th Phagun 1999 Bikrami i.e. 11th March, 1943 and 24th Maghar 2003 Bikrami i.e. 10th December, 1946 ?
In 1958 59 the plaintiff had planted 3000 Deod har and Kail trees which was highly appreciated by the Deputy Commissioner, Vide Exh.
By the second grant one more Basa Sharotk hola pargana Bhatoligarh was granted in perpetuity.
P 14, was made by the plaintiffs father directing that all the lands and bases granted under the Patta of 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, exclusively to the plaintiff should be shown in his sole name in the records by deleting the name of Rani Sahiba Katochi therefrom.
P 2 regarding handing over of the Basajat companyld be in respect of revenue yielding area only as the forests were already in the pos session of the Punjab Government.
The Division Bench refused to place reliance on the oral testimony of the aforesaid witnesses in view of the aforequoted authoritative definition.
341,606, 222 and 34 under the letter No.
If the Raja desired to grant only revenue yielding lands to the plaintiff he would number have included these four numbers in the grant.
He found that in the statement of the Zamin dars of Village Addu, Exh.
According to Punjab Settlement Manual Fourth Edition uncultivated land is classified as Banzar Jagir, Banzar Kadeem and Gair Mumkeen.
By a similar numberification dated 17th September, 1959, Exh.
5158 of even date directing companyresponding mutation changes.
and Was the State Government companypetent to issue Notifications under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954?
P 21 published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette dated 25th June, 1959, the plaintiffs forests in Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 3,218, 606, 149, 263 and 166 situate in Village Addu were declared private forests under Section 4 of the said statute.
P 23 dated 23rd August, 1957.
The third grant of 24th Maghar 2003, Bikrami, was exe cuted by the plaintiffs father with a view to making the plaintiff the sole beneficiary under the first two grants by deleting the name of Rani Sahiba Katochi as a joint grantee with her companysent.
This supports the statement of PW11 S.R. Jhingta that in Tehsil Rampur forests and grass lands were entered as Banzar Kadeem.
3, from cutting and lifting the trees from the forest area and companypelled deposit of Rs.3,36,000 for removing the trees and was also required to execute a bond.
On the plaintiff attaining majority his estate was released from the Superintendence of the Court of Wards w.e.f.
In this document the Jagir granted to the plaintiff under the first Patta has been described as companyprising several Basas.
Thereafter the Divisional Forest Officer by his letter No.
These are acts of owner ship which have number been repudiated.
In Vol.
However, so far as the plaintiffs forests were companycerned they companytinued under the States management since he was a minor.
The Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1954, Act No.
D 1/3B. At the date of merger the forests belonging to the State of Bushahr devolved on the Himachal Pradesh Administration except the private forests.
We, therefore, direct that the said amount together with interest accrued thereon shall be refunded to the appellant plaintiff The appellant plaintiff also made a claim in respect of the value of the trees cut and sold by the Forest Department during the year 1951 52 when the appellant was a minor.
On the death of the plaintiffs father in April 1947, the Political Agent, Punjab Hill States, Shimla, wrote a letter Exh.
The plaintiff exercised proprie tary rights thereon till 1960 when doubts were raised by Raina, who feared that if the plaintiffs claim is companyceded the State will have to suffer a loss of Rs.
The other technical objections to the maintainability of the suit were spurned and the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as stated earlier On appeal the Division Bench of the High Court came to the companyclusion that when the plaintiffs father executed the first grant in favour of the plaintiff he was aware that he had renewed the lease in respect of the forest lands for a period of fifty years and, therefore, he companyld number have intended to make an absolute grant in respect of the forest lands companyered under the lease to the plaintiff.
In addition to the said amount of Rs.
Next Exhs.
By the second grant of 29th Phagun 1999, Bikrami, the plaintiffs father granted certain additional land, namely, Basa Sharotkhala Pargana Bhatoligarh, jointly to the plaintiff and his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi.
Further according to the learned Trial Judge, the evidence, companysidered as a whole, fully established that iii the grant was number repudiated but was given effect to by the Political Agent, Shimla, as well as by the revenue authorities of Bushahr State and was recognised by the Dominion of India at the time of the States merger.
7 of 1970, before the Division Bench of the High Court which came to be allowed on 31st December, 1977.
What then is a Basa?
Under Section 1 of the Indian Independence Act, 1947, as from 15th August, 1947, two independent Dominions of India and Pakistan came to be set up.
The said permission was granted by Exh.
The provision of the Patta are quite clear and reasonable, so 1 order the division of the private property, both movable and immovable, in accordance with its terms, that is to say the possession of the immovable property of the late Ruler specified in the Patta shall at once be mutuated in favour of Rajkumar Rajinder Singh and given in trust to Rani Sahiba katochi on behalf of her minor son .
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.
The plaintiff had also made applications for permission to fell trees from the disputed khasras which were granted, vide Exhs.
On 15th April, 1948 an agreement of merger was signed whereby the Raja of Bu shahr ceded to the Dominion of India full and exclusive authority, jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the State.
The grant was ultimately given effect to be the mutation entry No.2299 dated 17/18 12 2003, Bikrami, Exh.
If by the grant the Raja intended to grant only the revenue yielding area of 263.4 bighas there was numberneed to mention and part of the uncultivated Jagir in Exh.
The said suit was filed on 18th November, 1964 in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Mahasu, but on the upward revision of the suit valuation for the purposes of companyrt fees and jurisdiction the plaint was presented the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Bench, Shimla, and was re numbered as Suit No.
Lastly, he warned that if the plaintiffs claim is accepted numerous such claims will be made by the villagers because of similar entries in the revenue records.
Some land was acquired by the State Government for its P.W.D. and the plaintiff was paid Rs.
P 22, published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette dated 26th September, 1959, Khasra Numbers 34, 309, 108, 479, 307, 207 and 3 17 situate in Village Addu were also numberified as private forests of the plaintiff under the same provision.
It is an admitted fact that the total area of the basa companyprising 106 plots is much more than 263.4 bighas.
In the said suit Choudhary Gopal Singh Co., a forest companytractor, was added as proforma defendant No.
5158 of even date directing his revenue officers to effect companysequential changes in the mutation.
P 25 for the removal of the said pillars from his lands.
The Division Bench also held that the numberification under Section 29 of the Indian Forests Act was validly issued and so long as it held the field, numbernotification companyld be issued under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954 and the same were, therefore, rightly companyrected by deleting the Khasra Numbers claimed by the plaintiff from the numberified forest area.
1977 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in R.F.A. No.
The disputed Khasra numbers were also the subject matter of two numberifications issued under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954, whereby they were numberified as private forests.
1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108, 2 18,222,309, 341,409,606, 4 and 33 situate in Chak Addu without prejudice to the application, if any, of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953.
1st April, 1949 on the stated terms.
The Division Bench of the High Court by its order dated 14th December, 1970 directed that the trees included in the Local Commissioners report dated 7th Decem ber, 1980 be sold by public auction and the sale proceeds be deposited in the State Bank of India, Shimla till the dis posal of the appeal.
PW3 Roop Singh Negi described basa lands as Banjar lands, arable lands, cultivated lands and forest lands.
It appears from the letter Exh.
Khata khatauni No.
This arrangement was further revised in 1929 w.e.f.
P 6 is a companyy of the mutation entry which companytains the following endorsement According to Shri Sarkars order No.
The argument that as the actual possession of the forests was with the Punjab Government the same companyld number have been transferred to the plaintiff overlooks the fact in such cases symbolic and dejure possession is transferred to make the grant companyplete.
By another application dated 16th February, 1959 the plaintiff sought permission to sell trees from khasra Numbers 34, 222, 34 1, 606 of Khewat No.
He traced his title to the said lands to a Patta executed by his father on 14th Maghar 1999, Bikrami, i.e. 28th November 1942 A.D., and to the Order No.
This discussion leads us to the companyclusion that a Chak companyprises Basas, a Basa companyprises both cultivated and uncultivated lands, unculti vated land includes Banzar Kadeem which in turn includes unmeasured forests.
Chapter II companyprising Sections 3 to 27 deals with Reserved Forests, Chapter III which companysists of a single section 28 refers to Village Forests and Chapter IV companypris ing Sections 29 to 34 companyncerns Protected Forests.
A centrally administered unit of Himachal Pradesh came into being on that day.
He strongly urged that the plaintiffs claim should be rejected outright and he and his companytractor, defendant No.
28th June, 1956 and before the numberifications under Section 4 thereof were issued, the plaintiff had by his application dated 21st May, 1957 applied for permission, presumably under Section 11 of the Act, to fell trees from Khasra Numbers 1, 222 606 of Village Addu.
D 3/6, wherein he reiterated that except for 263.4 bighas of revenue yielding land the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the remaining 1719 acres was fantastic.
1 and 2 preferred an appeal, being Regular First Appeal No.
It is also neces sary to remember that the plaintiff was denied the ownership of Khasra Numbers 241, 732/280, 736/394 and 728/402 admeas uring about 11 biswas as they formed part of the forest road.
The annual income of the Jagir thus grant ed was Rs.9,000 and in addition thereto the State agreed to pay Rs.9,000 in cash as Jagir money, besides agreeing to bear the expense of the plaintiffs education and marriage.
18.75 lakhs.
341, 108,222, 34, 479,606 and 4 as unmeasured and forest lands.
DW 1/1 under Section 29, the State Government framed the rules under Section 32, Exh.
this companyduct evidence lends support to the view that the disputed Khasra numbers were bestowed on the plaintiff under the first Jagir of 14th Maghar 1999 Bikrami.
P 6 does number mention the khasra numbers of the 106 plots.
On the plaintiff attaining majority his estate was released w.e.f.
The mutation entry, besides mentioning the area of 263.4 bighas, also speaks of part of uncultivated Jagir the revenue and swai of which has been remitted.
It was only in 1960 after Mr. Rainas secret letter and his subsequent numbere that the defendants disputed the plaintiffs ownership in the said Khasra numbers and issued the companyrigendum Exh.
S. Nariman, V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudaliar and C.K. Rat naparkhi for the Appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The State Government was, therefore, companypetent to issue the two numberi fications under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954, and it was number justified in annulling them on the erroneous premise that the said lands belonged to the State Government.
Bikrami i.e. 28th November, 1942 whereby he bestowed upon the plaintiff and his mother Rani Sahiba Katochi land admeasuring about 1720 acres.
If yes, was the State Government justified in issuing the subsequent Corrigendum of 28th July, 1960?
He thought that this was a test case.
The expression Private Forests as defined by Section 3 13 of the Act means a forest which is number the property of the Government or over which the State has numberproprietary fights or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the State is number entitled.
The list of the plaintiffs Jagir prepared by the revenue authorities after the death of his mother also describes the said Khasra numbers as unmeasured forests.
2/21 to 25 companyprise 24 plots showing an area admeasuring 5.6 bighas as cultivated and 38.11 bighas as uncultivated.
G. Bhagat, Naresh K. Sharma for the Respondents.
Therefore, the numberification issued under section 29 companyld have numberapplication to such private forests.
P 20, P 23 and P 28.
18.75 lakhs.
An amount of Rs.3,36,000 was later deposited pending finalisation of the dispute.
The subsequent companyduct of the parties, as we shall presently show, also lends support to this view.
These four plots though measured did number yield reve nue.
P 50 dated 9th August, 1947 expressing dissatisfaction with the number implementation of the Patta and directed speedy implementation thereof.
1, Khatauni No.
It, therefore, held that the said two numberifica tions issued under Section 1 had numberefficacy in law and the permissions granted under Section 11 of the said law can be of numberavail to the plaintiff.
This list dated 31st January, 1956 shows the total landed estate companyprised of 1864 acres.
As regards the plaintiffs companytention based on the surrender of the lease in 1949, the Division Bench companycluded that the exchange of letters Exh.
3 but numberrelief was claimed against the said party.
It, however, took the view that after the execution of the lease deed dated 25th September, 1942, Exh.
Clause III of the docu ment recites as under III.
He held that ii in the State of Bushahr only cultivated land was generally measured and forest lands remained unmeasured and, therefore, the area of only revenue yielding cultivated land was mentioned in the mutation entry but that did number mean that the grant was companyfined to that area only.
1 2, Khataunis Nos.1 to 25 companyprising 106 plots, both measured and unmeasured, bearing Khasra Nos.
1/1 to 20 companyprise 82 plots showing an area admeasuring 219.7 bighas as cultivated and 200.8 bighas as uncultivated whereas khata khatauni No.
The plaintiff, there fore, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal to assert his rights.
The relevant revenue records of the Bushahr State right from 1915 16 show the disputed Khasra Numbers as unmeasured.
D 3/4, wherin he stated that the first class forest companypartments 10A Part, 10B Part , 9A, 9B, 9C and 8C were the property of the forest department and the question of demarcation of these forests did number arise.
The dispute in the present case mainly companycerns a few Khasra numbers of Basa Kotadhar Ghori Samat Pargana Baghi Mastgarh companyprising 106 plots.
On the termination of the lease the private property reverted to the owners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular First Appeal No.
P 8, were made which disclosed that the dispute related to the boundary in companypartment 8 b only but numberfinal decision companyld be taken as some difference of opinion persisted between the officers of the forest department in this behalf.
P 2 have been proved through the evidence of the scribe PW 1 Thakur Chet Ram.
The revenue of the cultivated area of 263.4 bighas is a paltry Rs.58 8 3.
Besides, if the grant is companyfined to 2634 bighas only, the words and part of the cultivated Jagir are rendered redundant.
P 29 dated 28th July, 1960, the State Government deleted Khasra Numbers 1, 2, 3, 2 18, 6, 44, 606, 149, 263 and 166 of Village Addu from the numberification of 10th June, 1959 and Khasra Numbers 34, 309, 108,479,307,207 and 370 of Village Addu from the numberification dated 17th September, 1959 on the ground that they were erroneously numberified as they in fact belonged to the Himachal Pradesh Administration.
There is, therefore, intrinsic evidence to show that the grant was number limited to only the revenue yielding area of 263.4 bighas.
1, 2, 6, 23, 30, 34, 44, 108,218,222,309,341,409,479,606,433,241,732/280, 736/394 and 728/402 of Chak Addu, tehsil Rampur, in the present district of Mahasu in Himachal Pradesh.
We number proceed to set out the relevant facts.
Till the doubt was raised by Mr. Raina, the State Government throughout treated the disputed Khasra numbers as forming part of the plaintiffs Jagir.
P 1 was executed on 24th Maghar 2003 Bikrami This document also describes the grant made under the first Patta by different Basas.
He filed a suit on 18th November, 1964 principally against the Union of India and the Govern ment of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh for a decla ration of his proprietary rights in about 1720 acres of forest land situate in Khatas Nos.
The land revenue and other cesses in respect of these basas were remitted for ever.
If the 106 plots in Exh.
Section 16 makes a companytract entered into by the owner with any person companyferring on such person the right to cut, companylect or remove trees, timber or fuel from the private forests void unless the owner has first obtained a licence in this behalf under Section 11.
Notifications were issued under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 1954 declaring the disputed lands as private forests.
1st April, 1956.
11 of 1987.
D 1 was companycluded between the Raja and the Government of Punjab on 25th September, 1942.
3 that the timber felled in companypartment 9C should number be removed and numberfurther felling of trees should take place in companypartments 8C, 9A, 9B and 10A Part and lOB Part in khasra No.
Accordingly, the sale proceeds were deposited out of which the appellant plaintiff was permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.2.60 lakhs after furnishing surety.
2966 of 1979.
He further pointed out that if the possession of these companypartments is transferred to the plaintiff the department will have to undergo a loss of Rs.
7 of 1970 arising out of Suit NO.
Reference to uncultivated Jagir implies existence of land other than cultivated revenue yielding land which may include forests.
With this in view he eventually companycluded an agreement of lease in 1864 with the British Government whereunder the latter agreed to protect and companyserve the forests and pay a fixed royalty for each tree felled.
The appellant original plaintiff is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh, the ex ruler of Bushahr State.
All the entries namely Exh.
In other words lands companyered by forests may be highly fertile and may be reserved by the Ruler for his own use or for the use of his relatives and dependents.
This enactment deals with i Reserved Forests, ii Village Forests and iii Protected Forests.
However, numberclaim was made in respect thereof in the suit filed by the appellant plaintiff which has given rise to this appeal.
P 29 withdrawing the aforesaid two numberifications as it was rea lised that it would result in a substantial loss of Rs.
Under clause II thereof, the term forest was defined to mean and include a demarcated forests b forests reserved for the use of the Raja and c undemarcated forests.
He had also donated some land from the same khasra for a school.
In companysideration of the following payments, the Raja hereby grants to the Punjab Government the entire and sole companytrol of the whole of the forests of Bushahr excepting those reserved for the use of the Raja as defined in Clause II and subject to the definitions and rules prescribed in the Schedule and Appendices attached to this agreement It becomes clear from the aforesaid clause in the lease deed that the Raja granted the entire and sole companytrol of the whole forest of Bushahr to the Punjab Government excepting the fights specifically reserved unto him.
If the appellant plaintiff was entitled to the said amount he ought to have claimed the same in the suit filed in 1964.
While the forests of Bushahr were under the companytrol and management of the Government of Punjab, Raja Padam Singh, the plaintiffs father, executed a document on 14th Maghar 1999.
7 of 1970.
Indisputably trees had been felled pursuant to the permis sion so granted.
Unfortunately, the plaintiffs mother who acted as his guardian after the death of her husband in April 1947 also passed away shortly thereafter on 22nd July, 1949 necessi tating the Court of Wards to step in since the plaintiff was still a minor.
DW 1/3A dated 25th April, 1949 that the lease agreement was mutually terminated and the management of the forests was taken over by Himachal Pradesh Administration from the East Punjab Government w.e.f.
After the execution of the first grant of patta the plaintiffs father made an Order No.
