DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR. versus SHRI DAUT & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 112 · Decided: 30-10-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, HIMACHAL PRADESH & 
A 
ANR. 
v. 
SURI DAUT & ORS. 
October 30, 1967 
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J.M. SHELAT, JJ.J 
llimaclwl Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates & Lclid Reforms 
Acl, 1953, s. l l-Exprenion .. right, title and interest of the /and-on't1t'r 
in the land"-Jj includes trtes on 1he land, 
Upan an application filed by a cultivating tenant M under s. 11 of 
lhe Himachal Pradesh Aholition of Big LaLded Estates and Land Re. 
fonns Act. 1953, the Compensation Officer held that as such tenant he 
\\'a~ entitled to acquire .. the right, titl~ and interest" of the owner of th<' 
land in question. After payment by the tenant of a specified 
amount 
of compensation. a ccnificate of ownership was 
~anted to him and, 
after his death, the land v-.·as mutated in favour of his wife and daughter. 
rcspondcncs in this appc;1f. 
The respondents applied to the Divisional Forest Officer for permis-
'ion to sell the trees of their land and although that Officer granted per-
mission for the sale, he failed to give the necessary orders for felling 
the trees and taking out the converted timber from the land .. The res-
pondents filed a petition nnder Art. 226 of the Constituti<>n for 
the 
issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Divisional Forest Oftic.:r 
to 
issue -Pr get issued the necessary pormission for felling lhe trees and 
moving' the timber. 
The Judicial Commis..ioner, following Vijay K11mcri 
T/Jalcur v. H.P. Administration. A.LR. 1961 H.P. 32. held that the appcl· 
lanls were cstoppcd from conlt ,ding that the respondents harl nn ;ntcresl 
in the trees and allowed the petition. 
In appeal to the Supreme Court it wa5 contended on behalf ot the 
appellants that under s. 11 of the Act the trees did not vest in the de-
:eased tenant but only the 'land'. as deflnd in s. 2(S) of tbe Act, and 
that the Compensation Officer was not competent to grant and, in fact, 
did not grant proprietary rights in the trees to the deceased tenant. 
HELD : dismissing the appeal : 
Under sub-s. ( 6) of s. 11, the tenant becomes the owner of the land 
compri90d in the tenancy on and from the dale of grant of the certificate, 
and it is expressly provided that the right, 
title and interest of the land-
owner in the said land shall detenninc. 
In the context the word •o\\oncr' 
is very comprehensive and implies that all rights, title ana interest of 
the Iand-0wner passed to the tenant. 
[I 16E-F] 
Furt1"'rmore, the expression "right, 
title and interest of the land-
o\\o·ncr in the land" is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. 
Under s. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different intention 
is expressed or implied, transkr of land would include trees standing 
on it; and s. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh 
Act should be construed in 
the same manner. 1115 El 
Achhru Mal v. Mmda Bakhsh, ( 1924) 5 Lah. 385 and Nasih Si11~h 
v. Amiri Chand, A.l.R. 1942 Lah. 152, distinguished. 
K11j11 Mal v. Salig Ram, [1919] ·Punj. Rec. 237, referred to. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
JI 
DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER V. DAUT (Sikri, J.) 
113 
• 
A 
Civ1L APPELLATE JURISQJCTION: Civil Appeal No. 128 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 12, 
1963 of the Judicial Commissioner's court, Himachal Pradesh, in 
Civil Writ Petition No. 19 of 1963. 
B 
Vikram Chand Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appel-
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
lants. 
Rameslnvai: Nath and Mahinder Narain, for respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sikri, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the Judicial 
Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, is directed againsr-his-jmigment 
allowing a petition filed by the respondents and issuing a writ of 
mandamus directing the Divisional For~st Officer, 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, 
in respect of certain khasra numbers. 
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 big/111s and 16 biswas comprised ir. khasra 
Nos. 452/1, 453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village 
Kadiali, Tehsil Thcog, 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-herei
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.