62.56 as companypensation which should be deposited.
flied this appeal.
in respect of certain khasra numbers.
Thereupon, number hearing anything further, the respondents flied a petition under Art.
For instance, in Achhru Mal v. Maula Bakhsh 2 , under a deed of sale the vendee was entitled to cut and remove the trees within a period of ten years, and the plaintiff brought a suit asking for a perpetual injunction A.I.R. 1961 H. P. 32.
The respondents applied for permission to sell the trees on their land, and the Divisional Forest Officer by order dated July 18, 1958, permitted them to sell the trees from their land on certain companyditions.
In order to appreciate.
Moti Ram died and the land was mutated in favour of his wife Smt.
Provisional companypensation was assessed at Rs.
It was urged before the Judicial Commissioner, on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer that the respondents had number interest in the trees standing on their land as.
As stated already, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12, 1963 of the Judicial Commissioners companyrt, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Writ Petition No.
1267.13 nP as government fee, but the Divisional Forest Officer failed to give clear orders for felling the trees and taking out the companyverted timber from the said and.
the trees were number land as defined in s. 2 5 of the Act, and that the Compensation Officer was number companypetent to grant, and, in fact, did number grant proprietary rights in the trees to the deceased Moti Ram.
He filed an application under s. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act and was granted proprietary rights in the land by the Compensation Officer by order dated August 30, 1957.
19 of 1963.
226 of the Constitution.
128 of 1965.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Vikram Chand Mahajan and R.N. Sachthey, for the appellants.
Sarahan Forest Division, and the Chief Conservator of Forests, Himachal Pradesh hereinafter referred to as the appellants to issue or get issued the necessary permission for felling the trees and the transit pass.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, is directed against his judgment allowing a petition filed by the respondents and issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Divisional Forest Officer.
On September 9, 1957, a certificate of ownership was granted to Moti Ram on his depositing Rs.
Land measuring 27 bighas and 16 biswas companyprised in khasra Nos.
The Chief Conservator Officer, by letter dated July 12, 1961, informed the respondents that the matter was being inquired from the Conservator of Forests, Simla Circle.
He further held that the respondents were granted permission to sell the trees standing on their land and they had, in fact, entered into an agreement to sell to a third party, and they had deposited Rs.
Besroo and his daughter Smt.
1267.13 nP and had thus acted to their detriment.
On November 15, 1958, the respondents deposited Rs.
Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondents.
land belonging to the defendants respondents The lower companyrts held that the trees growing on agricultural land were land within the meaning of the expression as defined in s. 2 3 of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, and, therefore, their sale to the plaintiff was unlawful having regard to the provisions of that Act.
the points raised by the learned companynsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts.
452/1,453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village Kadiali, Tehsil Theog, District Mahasu, belonged to Government and was under the tenancy of Moti Ram.
62.56 nP. The Compensation Officer held that as the applicant is a cultivating tenant over the aforesaid land he is entitled to acquire right, title and interest of the said land owner on payment of Rs.
62.56.
With certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner the appellants have.
