12472.7 Rupees Twelve thousand four hundred and seventy two and annas seven only was credited into the treasury by Challan Nos.
The appellant by his letter dated May 12, 1966, informed the manager that as the timber was required for use in Partabghur and Dekorai tea estates which were number within C. Tezalpatty Grant No.
The lease was to be exploited for cultivation and raising tea garden.
Correspondence further ensued between the parties and ultimately the respondent companypany paid an amount of Rs.
43 dated the 24.2.32 The lessee shall be liable to pay timber valuation at full rates on all timber sold or removed for sale and on all timber removed for use unconnected with exploitation of the grant during the period of his lease or renewed lease.
In accordance with this finding the High Court made the rule absolute, directed refund of the amount paid under protest and issued a mandamus directing the appellant to issue permits to the respondent companypany without payment of royalty for removal of timber from Tezalpatty Grant No.
For this assertion the appellant relied upon a portion of clause 2 of Part IV of the lease deed dated September 27, 1932.
1 held under lease dated September 27, 1932, and for a mandamus directing the appellant to issue permits without insisting upon payment of royalty for the trees cut and felled from the area under lease.
1 of Nagshankar Mouza, for utilising the same for building of staff and labourers houses.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
The manager by his letter dated April 23, 1966, informed the appellant that as the lessee is Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd, it can cut and fell timber from any of its leased area to be utilised for its purposes in any other division.
7069.37 p. as royalty for cutting and felling trees from Tezalpatty grant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 10th September, 1968 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No.
I was in favour of M s. Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., the companypany was entitled to cut and fell timber from N.C. Tezalpatty grant area for its use in other tea gardens, namely, Partabghur and Dekorai and even if the latter two gardens were outside N.C. Tezalpatty Grant No.
It was made clear that if it was number so, full royalty will be payable by the companypany for cutting, felling and removing timber.
The companypany also prayed for a mandamus directing the present appellant who was respondent in the High Court for issuing permits without insisting on payment of royalty whenever timber was to be cut from the leased area for the purposes companynected with the exploitation of the grant.
The lease in the first instance was for a period of 15 years companymencing from April 1, 1932.
Unquestionably, the rights and obligations between the parties to this appeal are governed by the terms of the lease dated September 27, 1932.
1, yet they being under the ownership and management of the companypany, felling of trees from the area of one grant for utilisation at other places would fall within the second part of the proviso to rule 37 in that the felling and removal of timber was for use number unconnected with the exploitation of the grant and, therefore, the companypany was entitled to fell and remove timber in the aforesaid situation without payment of royalty.
By the reply dated April 4, 1966, the appellant numbered that the timber was to be cut for companystructing houses in Partabghur and Dekorai Tea Estates and that it was necessary to ascertain whether any of the aforementioned two Tea estates was situated within the grant evidenced by lease of N.C. Tezalpatty No.
The lease was executed between the Company and the Secretary of the State for India.
Respondent Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd. Company for short took on lease land admeasuring 1107.26 acres from the Government.
Some averments in the petition were disputed.
56 of 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Timber valuation at reduced rates estimated at Rs.
The appellant filed his return to the rule issued by the High Court.
Therefore, the manager suggested that the permit must be issued without insisting on payment of royalty.
Specifically the respondent who was a petitioner in the High Court claimed the right to relief under Clause 2 of Part IV of the indenture of lease which reads as under The lessee shall pay to the lessor as provided by rules for the time being in force under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation for all timber if any on the demised lands cut down, removed or utilised by the lessee during the period of the lease.
K Nandy for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the respondent Bishwanath Tea Co. Ltd., in the Assam and Nagaland High Court questioning the action of the appellant, the Divisional Forest Officer, Darrang Division, of recovering Rs.
218 of 1970.
N. Chowdhary for the Respondent.
The lease was subject to companyditions set out therein and generally to Assam Land and Revenue Regulation and the rules made thereunder.
7069.37 p. as and by way of royalty under protest and then filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court alleging that upon a true companystruction of the relevant clause of the grant as also proviso to Rule 37 of the Settlement Rules as the timber was required for the purpose companynected with the exploitation of the grant, the companypany as lessee was entitled to cut and remove timber without payment of royalty and, therefore, the recovery of royalty being unsupported by law, the appellant was liable to refund the same.
1 for use in tea garden of Dekorai division for exploitation of tea plantation.
1 of Nagshankar Mouza from which timber was to be felled and cut, full royalty will be payable on timber so cut and removed because it was to be utilised for the purpose unconnected with the grant.
On February 15, 1966, manager of the Company approached the appellant seeking permission to cut 7000 cubic feet of timber from Grant N.C. Tezalpatty No.
