1965 (2) TMI 118 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Ownership of trees standing on forest lands in the 39 villages.
2. Rights of jagirdars to cut and remove trees from the forest lands.
3. Application of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953.
4. Interpretation of Sections 3, 5(1)(b), 8, 9, and 10 of the Jagirs Abolition Act.
5. Rights conferred under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Ownership of Trees Standing on Forest Lands in the 39 Villages:

The respondents, who were jagirdars of Waghach State, claimed full ownership of the forest lands and the trees standing on them. However, the court concluded that under Section 3 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, all jagirs were abolished and all rights of the jagirdars were extinguished unless expressly provided otherwise in the Act. The court emphasized that the rights of the occupants under the Bombay Land Revenue Code do not include the right to cut and remove trees from forest lands. The court noted that the 39 villages in question had not been surveyed or settled, and until such survey and settlement, the rights to the trees remained with the State Government. Therefore, the trees standing on the forest lands did not belong to the jagirdars but to the State Government.

2. Rights of Jagirdars to Cut and Remove Trees from the Forest Lands:

The respondents argued that they had the right to cut and remove trees, including reserved species, from the forest lands. However, the court found that under Section 5(1)(b) of the Jagirs Abolition Act, the jagirdars only became occupants of the forest lands and did not acquire the right to cut and remove trees. The court referred to Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which states that the right to trees in unalienated land is deemed to be conceded to the occupant only after the completion of the survey and settlement, which had not occurred in this case.

3. Application of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953:

The Jagirs Abolition Act was enacted to abolish jagirs in the merged territories and provide for matters consequential and incidental thereto. The court highlighted that under Section 3 of the Act, all jagirs were deemed to have been abolished, and all rights of jagirdars were extinguished except those expressly provided by the Act. The court interpreted the Act to mean that the jagirdars' rights to the trees were not saved by any provision of the Act.

4. Interpretation of Sections 3, 5(1)(b), 8, 9, and 10 of the Jagirs Abolition Act:

- Section 3: Abolishes all jagirs and extinguishes all rights of jagirdars unless expressly saved by the Act.
- Section 5(1)(b): Confers occupancy rights to jagirdars over the lands in their possession but does not include the right to trees.
- Section 8: Vests all uncultivated lands and waste lands in the State Government.
- Section 9: Vests the rights to trees specially reserved under the Indian Forest Act or any other law in the State Government.
- Section 10: Expressly saves the rights of jagirdars to mines or mineral products but does not mention trees.

The court concluded that these sections collectively indicate that the jagirdars did not retain rights to the trees on the forest lands.

5. Rights Conferred Under the Bombay Land Revenue Code:

The court analyzed the relevant sections of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, particularly Sections 40 and 41, which deal with the rights to trees in unalienated lands. The court noted that the right to trees is deemed to be conceded to the occupant only after the survey and settlement of the village, which had not occurred in this case. Therefore, the jagirdars did not have the right to the trees under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's judgment, holding that the respondents (jagirdars) did not have the right to cut and remove trees from the forest lands in the 39 villages. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the Special Civil Application filed by the respondents. The appellants (State of Gujarat and others) were entitled to costs both in the Supreme Court and the High Court.

Appeal allowed.