9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Mouza Sunderpani Jagir contract of all the teak trees of more than 12 inches girth standing in the 1,000 acres of the forest of big trees and excluding those teak trees which have girth upto 12 inches is given to contractor Badri Prasad Moolchand firm of Timarni for a sum of ₹ 17,006 (seventeen thousand rupees), on payment of the amount in a lump-sum. 2. In respect of the teak trees mentioned in paragraph No. 1 contractor Shri Badri Prasad deposited with me the total mount of ₹ 17,000 (seventeen thousand rupees), as under: ₹ 6,000 (Six thousand rupees) on 27- 12-1950. ₹ 11,000 (Eleven thousand rupees) on 21-1-1951. Receipts have been passed for depositing the above amount. 3. The transfer of the forest shall not be done without consent of the owner. The contractor shall have to pay ₹ 100 (One hundred rupees), for transfer. 4. For the proper execution of work of the forest the felling of the forest shall have to be done from one side. Excluding the teak trees upto the girth of 12 inches the cutting of those teak trees which are above that girth shall have to be serially done. 5. After felling, the stumps of teak trees should be 3 inches h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seventeen thousand rupees), for the contract of big trees of Sunderpani village of Makrai Circle which (contract) is under dispute at present. This contract can be given to you on this compromise only. If you do not wish to pay this amount you may, in future, take any action you deem fit. 2. You may express your desire within seven days of the receipt of this letter. If you fail to do. this it will be presumed that you are not inclined to make a mutual compromise. 3. On receipt of your reply the State Government will be informed. 4. It is this letter which the plaintiff contends was an offer and which he accepted by the following letter, dated February 5, 1955: Subject: Contract of sale of teak- trees in Sunderpani Forest in Makrai Range. Reference:--Your letter No. 180, dated 1st Feb. 1955 . Dear Sir, I am ready to pay ₹ 17,000 provided my claim to have the refund of ₹ 17,000 already paid, from Shri Bharat Shah, the owner of the village or any other relief consequential to the judgment of that case remains unaffected. I reserve my right to claim the said or like amount. Subject to these conditions I shall pay ₹ 17,000 as required in your above r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etary rights in the State. - (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from a date to be specified by a notification by the State Government in this behalf, all proprietary rights in an estate, mahal, alienated village or alienated land, as the case may be, in the area specified in the notification, vesting in a proprietor of such estate, mahal, alienated village, alienated land, or in a person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor, shall pass from such proprietor or such other person to and vest in the State for the purposes of the State free of all encumbrances. (2) After the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1), no right shall be acquired in or over the land to which the said notification relates, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entered into by or on behalf of the State; and no fresh clearing for cultivation or for any other purpose shall be made in such land except in accordance with such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf Section 4. Consequences of the vesting.- (1) When the notification under Section 3 in respect of any area has been published in the Gazette, then, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on occupied land other than land comprised in home-farm or homestead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person; (e) all tanks situate on occupied land and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shah continue to belong to or held by such proprietor or other person; (f) all tanks, belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor which are situate on land other than village site or occupied land and in which no person other than such proprietor has any rights of irrigation, shall belong. to or be held by such proprietor. (g) all tanks and embankments (bandhans) belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person which are situate on land other than village site occupied land and the beds of which are under cultivation of such proprietor or such other person shah belong to or be held by such proprietor or such other person and the land under such tanks and embankments shall be settled with such proprietor or such other person on such terms and conditions as the State Government may determine; (h) all groves wherever situate and recorded in -vill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners were not encumbrances within the meaning of the expression free from encumbrances in Section 3(1) of the Act. The Court accordingly issued a writ prohibiting the State from interfering in any manner with the enjoyment of those rights by the petitioner. It may be mentioned that in that case the Court was dealing with an application under Article 32 of the Constitution. 15. Chhotabhai's [1953] S.C.R. 476 case was distinguished in Ananda Behera v. The State of Orissa [1955] 2 S.C.R. 919 which again dealt with a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. In Anand Behara v. The State of Orissa [1955] 2 S.C.R. 919 the subject-matter of licence was fishery rights and the Act which was construed was the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. The Court held that the right sought to be acquired by the petitioners by their several purchases was not in respect of any future goods as claimed by them but was a license to enter on the land coupled with a grant to catch and carry away the fish, in other words, a profit a prendre which is immovable property within the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act read with Section 3(25) of the General Clauses Act. The Court further held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] 2 S.C.R. 919, Shantabai's case [1959] S.C.R. 265 the State has not acquired or taken possession of those rights but has only declined to be bound by the agreements to which they were not a party. If, on the other hand, the petitioners were mere licensees, then also, as pointed out in the second of the two cases cited, the licences came to an end on the extinction of the title of the licensers. In either case there was no question of the breach of any fundamental rights of the petitioners which could support the petitions which were presented under Article 32 of the Constitution. 17. The Court then construed the agreements in question and came co the conclusion that the agreements could not be said to be contracts of sale of goods simply. Then the Court examined the provisions of the Central Provinces I and Revenue Act and came to the following conclusion: From this, it is quite clear that forests and trees belonged to the proprietors, and they were items of proprietary rights. The first of the two questions posed by us, therefore, admits of none but an affirmative answer. If then the forest and the trees belonged to the proprietors as items in their 'proprietary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was construed was Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh Civil Appeal No. 393 of 1965 dated February 20, 1968. In that case Mulamchand had purchased a right to pluck, collect and remove forest produce like lac, tendu leaves, etc., from the proprietors of the different Malguzari jungles. This Court followed State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yakinuddin [1963] 3 S.C.R. 13 and negatived the claim of Mulamchand to exercise his rights under the agreement. 20. In view of .these cases it is too late in the day to contend that the forest and the trees did not vest in the State under the Act. 21. There is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel that under the contract the plaintiff had become owner of trees as goods. It is true that trees which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale are goods for the purposes of the Sale of Goods Act. But before they cease to be proprietary rights or interest in proprietary rights within the meaning of Sections 3 and 4(a) of the Act they must be felled under 1 the contract. It will be noticed that under cl. 1 of the contract the plaintiff was entitled to cut teak trees of more than 12 inches girth. It had to be ascer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
