STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. versus M. M. THAMMAIAH & ANR.

Citation: [1975] 1 S.C.R. 422 · Decided: 02-05-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

422 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
A 
v. 
M. M. THAMMAIAH & ANR. 
May 2, 1974 
(M. H. BEG AND Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J 
Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964--Rules for Classifiers issued under Regu-
B 
la/ion l of 1899-Rule 10.-Whether contains all express order reserving right 
of Government to the trees on Bane lands, 
Appellant No. 1 sold certain soft wood trees standing on hls lands con-
sisting partly of Bane lands for a consideration and asked the Divisional Forest 
Officer for the issue of a permit in the name of the buyer permitting him to cut 
and remove the 
timber. The Division! 
Forest Officer 
informed 
appellant 
no. 
1 that the 
Bane lands held 
by 
him 
were 
not redeemed 
and 
that no permission 
could be granted 
for cutting and removing the 
C 
timber unless the timber value was paid. 
In a 
petition 
under Art 
226 
of 
the 
Constitution 
the 
appellant 
challenged 
the 
constitutional vali-
dity of rule 137 of Mysore Forest Rules, 1969 and contended that the rule 
was inconsistant with provisions of s. 75(1) of the Mysore Land Revenue 
Act, 1%4. The High Court upheld the validity of the rule but held that 
the appellant was liable to pay timber value of only such trees as were in 
existence at the time of the Survey Settlement of 1910. It further held that 
rule 10 of the rules for classifiers contains an express reservation oi' the trees 
D 
standing on Bane lands in favour of the State Government. 
On the question whether ruje 10 of the Rules for Cla~sifiers contains an 
express reservation Of trees standing on Bane lands in favour of the State 
Government. 
HELD : Rule IO of the Rules for Classifiers does not contain an express 
order reserving the right of the State Government to the trees growing on 
Bane lands within the meaning of s. 75(1) of the Mysore Lmd Revenue Act, 
1964. 
Rule 10 is a part of the rules meant for the g_uidance of classifiers 
for implementing the impending survey settlement. The rules called 
"Rules 
for Classifiers" contain instructions as to how the ylassifiers should conduct 
themselves in making the survey settlement. [426F·H] 
The second paragraph of the explanation to rule 10 by its very language 
refers to a state of affairs that is assumed to exist and does not contain any 
express order or declaration regarding the reservation of trees in favour of 
the Govemment. The vCry nature and context of the Rules for Classifiers 
would show that .they could not passi.bly c_oncern t]lemselves with a matter 
regulating the vesting of a substantive nght hke the right of the State GGvem-
ment to the trees upon Bane lands. At best rule 10 could be. said to refer 
to a historical fact. [427C-D] 
{Rule 137 was deleted during the pendency of tho appeal. The question as 
regards the validity of the rule is now academic.] 
[428C·D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1721 of 1971 
and 1000 of 1972. 
Appeals by certifiC'ate from the judgment and order dated the 18th 
March, 1971 of the Mysore High Court in W.P. 6394 of 1969. 
S. s. Javali, K. S. Gouri Shankar and B. P. Singh, for the appel-
lants. 
R. N. Bym Reddy, Karnataka (in C.A. No. 1721/71 only) and M. 
Veerappa, for the respondents. 
G. B. Pai, C. S. Rao and P. C. Bhartari, for the intervener. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
, 
--
j
• 
• 
• 
.. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
MYSORE v. M. M. THAMMA!AH (Chandrachud, !.) 
423 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
CHANDRACHUD, J. These are two cross-appeals by certificate 
granted by the High Court of Mysore under Article 133(1) (b) of the 
Constitution and they arise out of its judgment dated March 18, 1971 
in Writ Petition 6394 of 1969. Civil Appeal 1000 of 1972 is filed 
by two persons ,;alled M. M. Thammaiah and B. M. Kar)appa (herein 
called the appellants), against the State of Mysore and the Divisional 
Forest Officer, South Coorg Division, Hunsur, Mysore (herein called 
the respondents). Civil Appeal 1721 of 1971 is filed by the State of 
Mysore and the Divisional Forest Officer . 
Appell-ant No. 1, M. M. Thammaiah, is the holder of immovable 
properties consisting partly of "Bane lands"', situate at Nemmale in 
the district of Coorg. On October 17, 1968 he sold certain soft-wood 
trees standing on his lands to appellant 2 for a sum of Rs. 20,000 . 
On September 23, 1969 he made an application to respondent 2, the 
Divisional Forest Officer, for the issue of a permit in the name of 
appellant No. 2 allowing him to cut and remove the timber. Respon-
dent 2 informed appellant No. 1 th

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