STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. versus MANGAT RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 97 · Decided: 24-10-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
MANGAT RAM AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 24, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. ANDS. MOHAN, J.] 
B 
Himachal Pradesh Land Preservation Act, 1978-Section 7-HP Land 
Preservation Rules, 1983-Rule 4 (2) (e)-Himachal Pradesh Land 
Revenue Act, 1973-Sections 17, 107-Purchase of land for raising 
orchards-demarcation of land for marking and cutting of trees-Assistant 
Collector Gr. II is competent person to effect demarcation-His report is C 
final-Revisional powers of Financial Commissioner are circumscribed by 
statutory provisions-Rules not applicable to lands in Theog Forest 
Division. 
The respondent purchased land in Tehsil Theog, District Shimla D 
from private owners for the purpose of planting an apple orchard 
during the year 1981-1982. The area is surrounded by thick forests 
from all sides. In order to raise an apple orchard felling of trees was 
required in the said area. 
Some of the respondents made an application for demarcation of E 
the land in question for the purposes of marking and cutting of trees. 
The Assistant Collector Grade II on 7th December, 1987 carried out 
the demarcation. He submitted the report with the noting that the 
verification of the report is required to be done by Senior Land 
Revenue Officer. 
Thereafter on 14th December, 1989, the lands were demarcated. 
F 
This was duly informed to the respondents. Since the State was not 
satisfied by the demarcation done by the Additional Collector the land 
was again demarcated by the Assistant Settlement Officer. He 
submitted a report stating that the felling was permissible under 10 G 
years programme during 1999-2000. 
The respondents filed Writ Petition for a direction to carry out and 
finalise the demarcation and a further direction to issue necessary 
permission to cut and remove the trees. The High Court allowed the 
Writ Petition holding that the report of As~istant Collector Gr. II was H 
97 
98 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
final. It directed the appellants to accord sanction to the respondents 
for clear felling of trees within a period of one month. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High 
Court. It is alleged that the report of the Assist.ant Collector cannot be 
treated as final since u/s 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue 
Act, 1973, the Financial Commissioner has got unlimited revisional 
powers. Where, therefore, at his direction there were further reports of 
the Assistant Settlement Officer and Additional Collector, reliance 
cannot be placed on the report of the Assistant Collector Grade II. 
Besides, the report of the Assistant Collector contained so many 
infirmities and Rule 4 (2) (E) prohibits felling even for the purposes of 
raising an orchard. 
Respondents submitted that the Assistant Collector Grade II had 
the necessary authority u/s 107 of the Revenue Act and that power is 
exercisable only by him and no one else. If that is the final report, the 
question of Financial Commissioner exercising revisional powers u/s 17 
of the Revenue Act could not arise. It was further submitted that the 
permission to fell trees had been given in several other cases and the 
bar of 10 years felling programme cannot be applied in this case. Right 
from the date of purchase these respondents have been vigorously 
pursuing their application for permission to fell trees, merely because 
of the pendency of that application with the 10 years programme as 
.1989-90 cannot be made applicable. Such a programme must relate to 
1932-83 during which year there was no bar. 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD 1.1. The report of the Assistant Collector Grade II is final. 
The Assistant Collector Grade II is the competent person to effect 
demarcation. His report is final. Assistant Collector Gradt II is a 
Revenue Officer as defined u/s 4 (17) r/ws 7. Therefore, such an 
Assistant Collector Grade II is the competent authority to exercise 
statutory powers under the Act. He can define the limits of any estate 
or of any holdings, fields or other portion of any estate. (101-G, 102-D) 
1.2. The revisional powers of the Financial Commissioner could not 
be exercised merely because the Assistant Collector Grade II has stated 
that the demarcation could be got verified from th~ Senior Revenue 
Officer. The revisional power of the Assistant Commissioner are 
circumscribed by the statutory provision. (102-E) 
ST A TE OF H.P. v. MANGAT RAM [MOH

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