9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (11) TMI 47X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en Petitions relating to Sirsi jagir (hereinafter called the Sirsi Petitions). The second group comprises nine Petitions relating to Pohri jagir (hereinafter called the Pohri Petitions). The third group consists of five Petitions relating to Palpur jagir (hereinafter called the Palpur Petitions). There are some differences in detail between the three groups, and we shall give the facts of each group separately, after setting out certain preliminary matters common to all the Petitions. 3. Abolition of jagirs was under contemplation in the former State of Madhya Bharat (now included in Madhya Pradesh). In order, therefore, to preserve the forest resources of jagirs to be abolished, the State of Madhya Bharat passed an Act called the "Jagir Forests (Prevention of Indiscriminate Cutting Act, No. 55 of 1950," (hereinafter called the Cutting Act), which came into force on July 3, 1950. Section 3 of the Act provides restrictions on the power of a jagirdar to deal with the forests in his jagir, and the relevant portion of that section is in these terms:- Except for his own bona fide Nister purposes or those of the villagers residing in the Jagir area concerned, no Jagirdar sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanction of the Jagir Commissioner was, however, received in relation to these contracts on January 19, 1954, except in one case where sanction had been given earlier in 1953. Thereafter, the Petitioners began to exploit the areas given to them. On March 1, 1954, the Collector of Guna took the view that the contracts were illegal and unconstitutional. He, therefore, stopped the Petitioners from working further and referred the matter to Government for clarification, which appears to have been received soon after. The Petitioners were then informed on April 5, 1954, by the Divisional Forest Officer that they could continue their work after receiving pass-books from the office. The contracts, however, expired on June 30, 1954, and the Petitioners apparently applied for extension of the period of the contracts. It is said that the Conservator of Forests passed an order on August 31, 1954, extending the period of the contracts to June 30, 1955; the balance outstanding from the Petitioners on that date was demanded and was paid, and thereafter they were informed on October 9, 1954, in accordance with the orders received from the higher authorities that as they had failed to complete th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of May 31, 1952, should be granted. The jagirdar, however, granted contracts to the nine Petitioners of this group on various dates in October and November 1952, for a period up to May 31, 1955. On October 16, 1952, the period of sanction had been extended up to June 30, 1953, which explains why the contracts to the Petitioners were granted in October and November, 1952. The Petitioners alleged that they started work soon after the contracts were granted to them by the jagirdar; but the case of the State is that no work was started in fact till December 1954. In November 1954, the Petitioners applied to the Divisional Forest Officer, Shivpuri for permission to continue to work in the forests. Thereupon the Divisional Forest Officer ordered that the Petitioners should sign written agreements in the usual form and pay the balance of the money due, and thereafter they would be permitted to carry on the work. The Petitioners' case is that fresh agreements were executed by the Divisional Forest Officer and sanctioned by the Chief Conservator of Forests; but this is denied by the State. The Petitioners further state that they were permitted on December 29, 1954, by the Forest Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shivpuri, to permit the Petitioners to start work with the prayer that the working period should be extended up to 30th June 1955. Thereupon the Divisional Forest Officer asked the Petitioners to deposit certain amounts and to take out passbooks. The Petitioners did some work soon after on obtaining the permission and then applied again in November 1954 for permission to work a further area. This was permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer on 8th November 1954, on payment of further amounts and the Divisional Forest Officer also put his signature on the agreement between the jagirdar and Fateh Singh. While the Petitioners were working under the permission of the Divisional Forest Officer, they were suddenly ordered to stop work on 3rd March 1955, by the Jagir Commissioner. They thereupon made representations and the Jagir Commissioner passed final orders on 12th April 1955, which were on the same lines as in the case of the Pohri Petitions. Further representations were made by the Petitioners, but to no effect. Consequently, the Petitioners filed the present Petitions. Their main contention is that the order of 12th April 1955, deprives them of their property without the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on a notification of 5th August 1954, by which all contracts for the sale of forest coupes, and c. and leases of forest lands could be executed on behalf of the Rajpramukh by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officers and District Forest Officers. This notification, however, was under Article 299(1) of the Constitution and merely specifies officers who will make the contracts on behalf of the Rajpramukh. It does not confer on them power to sell the property of the State. The notification only authorizes the various categories of forest officers to execute contracts after the sale has been sanctioned by the proper authority entitled to sanction the same. The power to make sales was given by letter No. 770/XV/1951 (102)/50, dated 7th March 1951, from the Development Secretary to the Chief Conservator of Forests, by which Divisional Forest Officers, Conservators of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests were authorised to sanction sales by auction of forest produce up to Rs. 2,000, Rs. 10,000, and Rs. 25,000 respectively. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the forest officers were authorised to grant extensions of the per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter called the Forest Act). Now, a "license" is defined in Section 52 of the Easements Act (V of 1882) as follows: Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, In or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a license. It is clear from this definition that license gives a right to do something upon the immovable property of the grantor, which would, in the absence of any such right be unlawful. And so far as the forest officers had given permission to the Petitioners to go into the forests and work, they would be entitled to do so. But a license alone cannot pass even movable property to the licensee unless the license is coupled with a grant of such property. Reliance in this connexion was placed on Ramakrishna v. Unni Check ILR 16 Mad 280. In that case a license was granted to capture elephants in a certain forest. It was urged that though the instrument was held to be merely a license, the licensee was entitled to take away the eleph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... forest lands for exploitation has to be found elsewhere. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Petitioners cannot be said to have legally acquired property in the trees from which they made charcoal and kattha etc. by virtue of the permission or license granted to them by the forest authorities. 13. We now turn to the Pohri and Palpur Petitioners. Their case may be dealt with together. The permission granted in their case to the jagirdars was to grant contracts for cutting trees in certain areas up to 30th June 1953. The jagirdars, however, granted the contracts up to 31st May 1955. The first question, therefore, that arises is whether the jagirdars could have granted contracts for a period longer than that sanctioned. It is urged that Section 3 of the Cutting Act does not bar the grant of contracts by the jagirdars; it only bars the cutting of the tree. Here again we do not think it necessary to decide whether Section 3 of the Cutting Act bars contracts for a period longer than that permitted by the Jagir Commissioner or only bars cutting of trees. Assuming that it only bars cutting of trees that would not improve the position of the Petitioners. In these cases the permission w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
