RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 20-07-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJ KUMAR RAJINDER SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS 
JULY 20, 1990 
[S. RANGANA1'HAN AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
Himachal Pradesh Private Forest Act, 19S4: Section 2(b), 4 and 
11-State Government-Whether entitled to issue notification declaring 
private land as forest land. 
Indian Forest Act, 1927-Section 29: Applicability to 'private 
forests'. 
Indian Evidence Act: Section 92: Glaim based on document-
4 
Whether oral evidence permissible to guide the Court in regardto inten-
tion of parties. 
The plaintiff /appellant is the second son of late Raja Padam 
Singh, the ex-ruler of Bushabr State in Himachal Pradesh. The erst-
while Ruler of Bushabr had sought the aid of the British Government in 
the management of his forests with a view to preserving, conserving and 
protecting the same from large-scale illicit and indiscriminate cutting of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
tr~s. Pursuant to this request, an agreement of lease dated 20th June, 
E 
186<! was executed between the said Raja and the British Government. 
TJte terms of this agreement were revised in 1877 and again 1928. 
Before the expiry of its extended term, anot,her agreement of lease was 
executed between Raja Padam Singh and the Government of Punjab on 
25th September, 1942 superseding all previous agreements. By clause 
(Ill) of this agreement the Raja granted to the Punjab Government the 
F 
entire and sole control of the forests of Bushahr excepting those 
reserved for his use under clause (II) thereof. The Raja was to receive in 
lieu thereof an annual payment of Rs. I lakh, and further payment of 
the whole net surplus on the working of the forests included in the lease. 
Raja Padam Singh executed a document on 28th November, 1942 
G 
whereby be bestowed upon the plaintiff and his mother land admeasur-
ing about 1720 acres, both measured and unmeasured. The original 
document, called the Patta, was admittedly lost during the minority of 
the appellant. The patta had, however, been referred to in the subse-
quent two grants executed by the Raja on lltb March 1943 and 10th 
December 1946. After the execution of the first grant or patta tbe 
H 
469 
A 
B 
c 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990) 3 S.C.R. 
plaintiff's father had made an Order No. 5158 directing corresponding 
mutation changes. The mutation entry, besides mentioning the area of 
263.4 bighas, also speaks of 'part of uncultivated 'Jago"'. Subsequently, 
in September, 1959, the plaintiff's forests were notified as 'private 
forests' under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 
1954. But in July, 1960 the State Government annulled the notifications 
on the ground that they were erroneously issued and that the lands in 
fact belonged to the Himachal Pradesh Administration. 
The plaintiff tiled a suit on 18th November, 1964 for a declaration 
of his proprietory rights in about 1720 acres of forest land, both 
measured and unmeasured. The learned Single Judge substantially 
decreed the suit. 
The learned single Judge held that (i) the plaintiff's father, who in 
internal matters had sovereign powers, had bestowed the lands in dis-
pute as a perpetual and unconditional grant on the plaintiff; (ii) the 
mere fact that in the mutation entry the areas was shown to be 263.4 
D 
bighas did not imply that the grant was limited to that much land only; 
(iii) in the State of Bnshahr only cultivated land was generally measured 
and forest lands remained unmeasured, and, therefore, the area of only 
revenue yielding cultivated land was mentioned in the mutation entry; 
(iv) the evidence, considered as a whole, fully established that the grant 
was not rependiated but was given effect to by the Political Agent, 
E 
Simla, as well as by the revenue authorities of Bushahr State and was 
also recognised by the Dominion of India at the time of the State's 
merger; (v) even assuming that the lands In dispute formed part of 
forests leased to the Government of Punjab, the Raja was not precluded 
from making the grant and the grants made in favour of the plaintiff 
were perfectly legal and valid; (vi) after the lease was terminated on 
F 
I Ith April, 1949, the Himachal Pradesh Administration treated the 
plaintiff as the owner and permitted him various acts as owne_rc and person 
in possession; (vii) notifications were issued under Section 4 of the 
Himachal Pradesh Act, 1954 declaring the disputed land as private 
forests; and (viii) the notification issued under section 29 of the Indian 
Forest Act, 192

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