GURU DATTA SHARMA versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 292 · Decided: 24-04-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I96I 
April z4. 
' 
292 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
GURU DATTA SHARMA 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., A. K. SARKAR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGARand J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Forest-Protection-V olidity 
of 
enactment-Constitutional 
validity-Legislative competence-Notification by State Government 
-Validity-Bihar Private Forests Act, 1946 (Bihar 3 of 1946). 
ss. 14, 21-Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947 (Bihar 9 of 1948), 
ss. 14, 21-Ch. IIl-Bihar Private Forests (Validating) Act, I949 
(Bihar I2 of 1949), s. 2--Government of India Act, I935 (25 & 26 
Geo. 5 Ch. 42), s. 299(2)-Constitution of India, Arts. 19(1)(]). 
JI (2). 
In 1946 the appellant was granted a right to cut and 
remove bamboos and certain other timber to· be found in a 
specific area of the forest Village of Jun by certain persons 
known as Manjhis who held under a mokarari lease granted by 
the Raja of Ranka and whose names had been entered in the 
revenue records. Meanwhile, the Bihar Private Forests Act, 
lg46, was enacted and it came into force on February 25, 1946. 
This Act was repealed and re-enacted by Bihar Act 9 of r948. 
On October 14, 1946, the Governor of Bihar issued a notification 
under ss. 14 and 21 of the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1946, 
declaring the forest of Jun as a protected forest. Though in 
the Schedule to the said notification, against the column headed 
"name of the proprietor" the name of Raja of Ranka was en-
tered, a copy of the notification was however served on the 
Manjhis. 
Immediately on the issue of the notification the offi-
cials of the Government of Bihar prevented the appellant from 
working the forest any further. 
The appellant challenged the validity of the proceedings 
under the Act by filing a suit. The trial court held that the 
Act was valid but decreed the suit on the. ground that the 
notification issued under s. 14 was invalid, primarily for the 
reason that tbe name of the Manjhis a.s landlord had not been 
mentioned in it. The High Court on appeal reversed the decree 
and dismissed the suit, holding that the omission of the name 
of the Manjhis in the notification did not render the same in-
valid and that even otherwise the proceedings under Ch. III of 
the Act had been validated bys. 2 of Bihar Act 12 of 1949· 
Held, that the Bihar Private Forests Acts of 1946 and 1948 
were validly enacted and were within the Legislative compe-
tence of the Province under the Government of India Act, lQ35, 
and were not otherwise obnoxious to its provisions. 
· 
Bihar Act 3 of 1946 was an Act supplementary to, or rather 
a complement of the Indian Forests Act of r927 and w,1s clearly 
2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
293 
covered by the l.i.:ntry 'Forests' in iten1 22 of Provincial I.egisla-
I96I 
tive List under which the Province could enact legislation not 
1nerely gener31ly in relation to "Forests" but also to enable the 
Guru Datta 
Government to assu1ne m::inagement and control of forests belong-
Shairna 
ing to private pi"oprietors. Such a legislation involved no viola-
v. 
tion of the guarantee against "acquisition by the State without 
State of .f/ihar 
compensation" contained in s. 299(2) of the Government of India 
Act, HJ35 Property, as a legal concept, was the sum of a bundle of 
rights and the imposition of a compulsory Governmental agency 
for the purpose of managing the forest with a liability imposed 
to account to the proprietor for the income derived as laid down 
by the statute was not an "acquisition" of the property itself 
within s. 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935· Nor 
does s. 299(5) affect the matter. The rights referred to in it are 
derivative rights, 1ike interests carved by an owner-a lessee 1 
mortgagee etc. and not an incident of a property right. 
Held, further, that the correct specification of the name 6f 
the landlord was not a legal pre-requisite of a valid notification 
under s. 14 of the Bihar Act 3 of 1946 but the emphasis was on 
specification of the land and not so much on the owner or the 
person interested in it. The proceedings taken under Ch. III 
of the Act including the notification issued under s. 14 of the 
Act were valid and in accordance with the law and the validity 
of the service of notices required by s. 14 or other provisions 
of the Act could not be challenged in view of the provisions of 
s. 2 of the Bihar Private Forests (Validating) Act, 1949· 
Held, also, that the legislation under which the appellant's 
rights were extin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.