SBRI U. R. MAVINKURVE versus THAKOR MADHAVSINGHJI GAMBHIRSINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 3 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 24-02-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SBRI U. R. MA VJNKURVE 
v. 
THAKOR MADHA VSINGHJI GAMBHIRSINGH AND 
OTHERS 
February 24, 1965 
lii 
[P. B. 
GAJENDRAGIDKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, 
RAGHUBil 
DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Bqmbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) ACI, 
1953, ss. 3, 5 and 9-J agirdars becoming occupants of Forest Areai 
0 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code after Abolition Act-Wheth"" 
their rights included right to trees under s. 40 of the Code. 
The first eleven respondents were J agirdars in a former state 
which was merged with the State of Bombay in June 1948. In August 
1953, these respondents entered into an agreement with respondent 
No. 12, whereby, the latter could cut and remove all species of trees 
D 
from forest lands in 39 villages over which the first eleven respon.-
dents claimed full proprietary rights. 
On August, 1, 1954,. the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas 
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 came into force whereby all Jagirs in 
the merged territories in Bombay State were abolished. Under s. 6 
of',the Act, the Jagirdars became 'occupants' in the lands including 
forest areas which were then in their possession. 
On July 6, 1956 the State Government issued a notification under 
1. 34(A) of the Indian Forest Act, declaring all uncultivated lands 
in the 39 villages to be forests for the purposes of Ch. 5 of the Act. 
Thereafter, h. March and July 1958, the Divisional Forest Officer 
wrote to the respondents stating, inter alia, that all the rights of 
the J agirdars having been abolished, the reserved species of trees 
on the lands belonged to the Stat~ Government and 
prohibiting 
them from cutting and removing the trees. The respondents there-
upon filed a writ petition, seeking a direction to the appellants to 
canceL and to restrain from enforcing the orders contained in the 
letters of the Divisional Forest Officer. 
The High Court allowed the petition, mainly on the ground that 
as the J agirdars became occupants within the meaning 
of 
the 
G 
Bombay Land Revenue Code of the forest lands under s. 5(1)(b) of 
the Abolition Act, they, and not the State Government, were entitl-
ed to the trees standing on them. In the appeal to the Supreme Court 
it was further contended on behalf of the respondents that as s. 9 
of the Act vested some of the rights to trees in forest areas in the 
State Government, by implicati.On, al,j, the remaining rights belong-
ed to the J agirdars. 
B 
HELD: Under s. 5(1)(b) of the Abolition Act, the only rights con-
ferred on the J agirdars were the occupancy rights of the Forest 
lands; under s. 40 of the Bombay Revenue Code the rights of occu-
pants did ·not include the right to cut and remove trees from the 
forest lands except in the case of villages of which the original 
survey and settlement has. been completed, whereupon the Govern-
ment's rights to the trees, unless expressly or otherwise reserved, 
are deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. In the presen,t 
case the villages in question had admittedly not been surveyed and 
178 
SUPREME 
COURT 
REPORTS \ 
(1965] 3 s.c.B. 
settled and therefore the rights of the State Government to the trees A 
could not be deemed to have been conceded to the respondents as 
occupants. (184 E-185 E] 
· 
'Bys. 3 of the Abolition Act all Jagirs and all the rights of a Jagir-
dar were extinguished unless there was any express provision in 
the Act saving any right. It could not be said ·that because s. 9 of 
the Act reserved certain rights to trees of the State Government 
and by implication the J agirdars had all the other rights, there was 
B 
an express provision saving the rights of the Jagirdars within the 
meaning of s. 3. (185 F-Hl 
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 281 
of 
1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
January 14, 1959 of the Bombay High Gourt in Special Civil Ap-
C 
plication No. 2146 of 1958. 
S. G. Patwardhan and R. If. Dhebar, for the appellants. 
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder 
Ntfl'ain, for respondents no. l, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 12. 
The Judgment of the Court was deliverecr by 
D 
Ramaswami, J. Respondents nos. l to 11 were the Jagirdars of 
Waghach State in former Sankeda Mewar in Reva Kantha Agency 
which now forms part of the State of Gujarat. They claimed that 
they were the full owners of all the land including forest areas in 
the said State and exercised full revenue power during their re-
B 
gime. There were 39 villages in Waghach

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