TMI Blog1967 (10) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the transit pass, in respect of certain khasra numbers. 2. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Land measuring 27 bighas and 16 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 452/1, 453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village Kadiali, Tahsil Theog, District Mahasu, belonged to Government and was under the tenancy of 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. Provisional compensation was assessed at ₹ 62.56 nP. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tary rights in the trees to the deceased Moti Ram. The learned Judicial Commissioner, following Vijay Kumari Thakur v. H. P. Administration held that the appellants were estopped from contending that the respondents had no interest in the trees. 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 ₹ 1267.13 nP. and had thus acted to their detriment. As stated already, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus. With certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Lahore High Court held that the sale did not infringe the provisions of that Act because the sale of trees was not a sale of land. The High Court was not concerned with the question whether on a transfer of land trees standing on it passed to the transferee or not. 6. In Nasib Singh v. Amin Chand A.I.R. 1942 Lah. 152, it was held that the suit for possession of certain mango, shisham and jaman trees was not a suit between a landlord and his tenant under the Punjab Tenancy Act and consequently the Civil Court was competent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est. [see Kaju Mal v. Salig Ram (1919) Punj. Rec. 237. 9. The learned counsel referring to s. 84 of the Act points out that one of the consequences of vesting of land in the State Government under s. 83 is that trees expressly vest in the State. He says that if it was the intention to vest trees in the tenant acquiring land under s. 11 of the Act, it would have been similarly so expressed. We are unable to accede to this contention. Section 84(a)(i) reads as follows : 10. When a notification under Section 83 has been published in the Gazette notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and save as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set-forth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|