Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
SALEHBHAI MULLA MOHAMADALI (DEAD)BY LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT AN
DATE OF JUDGMENT25/10/1991
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1993 AIR 335 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 564
1992 SCC (1) 742 JT 1991 (4) 265
1991 SCALE (2)931
ACT:
Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Aboli-
tion)Act, 1953--Section 8--Chhota Udepur State--Land de-
clared as reserved forest Jagirdar’s right in trees standing
in such area.
HEADNOTE:
This appeal by the plaintiffs is against an order of rever-
sal dtd.7/10th February, 1975 passed by the Gujarat High
Court. Plaintiff No.1 first appellant is the contractor and
Plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4, the other appellants. are the jagir-
dars of the farmer State of chhota Udepur. The Jagirdars
sold some teak trees to plaintiff No.1, contractor. With
effect from 1.8.1954, the Bombay Merged Territories and
Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 was made applicable to
village Nalej,and no compensation was awarded to the Jagir-
dars in lieu of the trees, as they had sold them to appel-
lant No.1 (since dead) and now represented by his legal
representatives. The contractor made an application to the
Collector of Baroda under Sourashtra Felling of Trees Act
for permission to cut the trees in question, which was
forwarded to Mamlatdar of Chhota Udepur who granted the
same on 25.9.1961 as a consequence whereof the contractor
started cutting the trees. The Prant Officer, Chhota Udepur
however, prevented the contractor from cutting the trees
whereupon the contractor represented the matter before the
Divisional Forest Officer and the State Government but was
told that the Jagirdars had no right to the trees standing
in the reserved forest area and in the waste land. The
Government sold the trees already cut for Rs. 15786 and also
sold the other trees to some other persons. The Jagirdars
and the contractor filed a suit against the State of Gujarat
and the Divisional Forest Officer. Chhota Udepur, District,
Baroda for rendition of accounts, for declaratio of the
plaintiffs’ title to the trees, for a declaration of the
right of the contractor to cut the trees and to remove the
same, and for direction to the State to issue the
necessary authorisation and transit passes for cutting and
removing the trees in question in favour of the contractor.
Decree for the balance of the amount of Rs. 14518.18 after
adjusting Rs. 1267.82 already received was also sought. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
trial court partly decreed the suit holding that the jagir-
dars were the full owners of the trees and as such the
564
565
contractor had also become the full owner thereof. The State
was also ordered to pay Rs. 14518.18 with proportionate
costs and interest at 4 per centum per annum on this amount
from the date of decree till realisation.
The State of Gujarat appealed against that order to the
High Court of Gujarat contending (i) that under Forest Rules
of Chhota Udepur State, Chotta Udepur State had exercised
rights over three kinds of forest-reserved, protected and
open, the State of Gujarat was thus competent to issue
notification under sec. 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1947.
(ii) under the rules, Mahuda and teak trees were reserved
trees and they are prohibited from being cut; (iii) under
the Jagir Abolition Act, Section 5, the solid vested in the
jagirdar and not the trees; hence Jagirdars could not have
sold the trees and (iv) the agreement executed between the
contractor and the Jagirdars was not enforceable at law; the
contractor could not claim any right/interest under the
same.
The High Court negatived all the contentions and the
rights accruable to the contractor under the agreement and
allowed the appeal of the State and dismissed the suit filed
by the appellants.
Hence this appeal by the appellants.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court
HELD: The trees in question stood on the area which was
declared as reserved forest under the forest rules framed by
the Chhota Udepur
State. [512 B]
Once it is established that during the time of existence
of erstwhile State of Chhota Udepur an area admeasuring 290
acres and 14 gunthas in village Nalej was declared as re-
serve forest and jagirdars had no right at all in the trees
standing in such area of reserved forest, the Jagirdars
cannot be considered to have acquired a greater right on
28.7.48 when the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State were
repealed by the Application of Laws Order. [514 C-D]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1865 of 1975.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 7/10.2.1975 of the
Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 291 of 1967.
566
A.S. Qureshi, N.K. Sahoo, P.H. Parekh, and Ms. Chetna
Anand for he Appellant.
Dushyant Dave, Mrs. Nandini Gore for Mrs. M. Karanjawa-
la, R. Karanjawala (N.P), Anip Sachthey and Rajesh for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J This appeal by special leave is directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated
7/10th February, 1975.
The plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 were Dumaldars of village Nalej
of erstwhile State of Chhota Udepur (hereinafter referred to
as the jagirdars). The jagirdars vide exhibit 58 dated
9.1.1954 sold all the teak trees in favour of plaintiff no.1
(hereinafter referred to as the contractor) for a sum of
Rs.6,001/- and received a sum of Rs. 101/- as earnest money.
By another agreement exhibit 59 dated 29th July, 1954, the
jagirdars sold all the Mahuda trees in favour of the con-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
tractor for a sum of Rs. 5001/and received sum of Rs. 600/-
as earnest money. On 1st August, 1954 Bombay Merged Territo-
ries and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 (hereinafter
referred to as the ’Jagir Abolition Act’) was applied to
village Nalej. The compensation in lieu of trees was not
awarded to the Jagirdars as the same had already been sold
by the Jagirdars in favour of the contractor. The contractor
made an application to the Collector of Baroda under sou-
rashtra Felling of Trees Act for permission to cut the trees
in question. The Collector forwarded the application to the
Mamlatdar of Chhota Udepur who granted the permission vide
order dated 25th September, 1961. The contractor then start-
ed cutting the trees in question. However, the Prant Offi-
cer, Chhota Udepur prevented the contractor from cutting the
trees. The contractor then made representations to the
Divisional Forest Officer and the Government. In reply the
contractor was told that the Jagirdar had no right to the
trees standing in the reserved forest area and in the waste
land. Thereupon the contractor’s authorisation to cut the
trees and his transit passes to transport the goods were
withheld. The Government invited tenders for the sale of the
trees already cut and sold the same on 30th July, 1962 for a
sum of Rs.15786/-. The Government also sold other trees to
other persons and realised from them some amounts. The
Jagirdars and the contractor filed a suit against the Gov-
ernment of Gujarat and the Divisional Forest Officer, Chhota
Udepur, District Baroda for rendition of account, for a
declaration of the plaintiffs title of the trees in question
and for a declaration of the right of the contractor to cut
the trees in question and to remove the cut materials.
567
A declaration was also sought that the impugned action
of the Government was illegal, ultra rites and unlawful and
to give a direction to the Government to issue the necessary
authorisation and transit passes for cutting and removing
the trees in question in favour of the contractor. It was
also prayed that out of the sale proceeds of the cut materi-
als on 30th July, 1962 for Rs.15786/- an amount of
Rs.1267.82 having paid by the Divisional Forest Officer, a
decree for the balance of Rs.14518.18 may be passed against
the Government.
The Trial Court by judgment dated 31st March, 1967
partly decreed the suit. It was declared that the jagirdars
were the full owners of the trees and as such the contractor
had also become the full owner of the trees. It was also
declared that the contractor was entitled to cut and remove
these trees and the State of Gujarat, its officers, servants
and agents were ordered to issue necessary permit, authori-
sation and transit passes to plaintiff no.1 (contractor) for
removal of the trees. The state was also ordered to pay
Rs.14518.18 together with proportionate costs and interest
at 4% per annum on this amount from the date of decree till
realisation. The State of Gujarat, its officers, servants
and agents were also restrained by perpetual injunction not
to interfere with the rights of ownership of the plaintiffs
except in due course of law. Prayer for rendition of ac-
counts was dismissed.
The State of Gujarat, aggrieved by the Judgment and decree
of the Trial Court filed an appeal in the High Court. The
Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, set
aside the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the
suit. The cross objections filed by the plaintiffs were also
dismissed.
It would be necessary to state some events which have a
material bearing with the case. The Jagir Abolition Act came
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
into force on 1.8.54 as already mentioned above. The Govern-
ment issued a notification dated 15th February, 1955 under
Sec. 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and constituted cer-
tain survey numbers of the village Nalej into a reserve
forest. Thereafter another notification was issued under
section 20 of the Indian Forest Act constituting survey
No.102 alone into a reserve forest. It may be noted that in
the present case we are concerned with the Teak and Mahuda
trees standing on survey No.102 of village Nalej. Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Gujarat had
raised the following contentions before the High Court:
1. Under the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur
State, Chhota Udepur State had exercised
rights over three kinds of forest-
568
reserved, protected and open. These rights
devolved upon the State of Gujarat. Therefore,
the State of Gujarat can exercise those rights
and issue under section 4 of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 the impugned notification.
2. Under the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur
State 21 kinds of trees including teak and
mahuda trees were reserved trees and they were
prohibited from being cut. The interest which
Chhota Udepur State had in those trees de-
volved upon the State of Gujarat and, there-
fore, under Section 4 of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 it was within the power and authori-
ty of the State of Gujarat to issue the im-
pugned notification.
3. Under section 5 of the Jagir Abolition Act
the soil vested in the Jagirdars and not the
trees. Therefore, the jagirdars could not have
sold away to the contractor the trees in
question. Since the trees in question had
vested in the State it was within the power
and authority of the State to issue the im-
pugned notification.
4. The agreement executed by the Jagirdars in
favour of the contractor were not valid and,
therefore, not enforceable at law. They did
not confer any title upon the contractor.
Alternatively, if the contractor had acquired
any rights under the said agreements, his
remedy lay in claiming compensation in respect
of his rights which were hit by the impugned
notification.
The High Court dealt with the above four contentions in
seriatim. While dealing with the first contention the High
Court considered that the decision of the appeal largely
turned upon the forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State. The
High Court after considering the matter in detail held that
survey No.102 of village Nalej was a reserved forest during
the days of Chhota Udepur State. The High Court referred to
the forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State in order to find out
the position in relation to survey no.102 of Nalej. Schedule
’A’ of the Rules contained the detailed discription of areas
which was declared as reserved forest. At serial No.11
Village Nalej has been mentioned amongst other villages.
Columns 7 and 8 showed that an area of 250 acres and 14
gunthas of village Nalej was declared as reserved forest.
No survey number of that area had been mentioned therein.
According to the High Court this Entry in Schedule ’A’ lends
support to the fact that there was one reserved forest
admeasur-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
569
ing 290 acres and 14 gunthas in village Nalej of Chhota
Udepur State. Survey No.102 of Village Nalej as a reserved
forest was not mentioned but this was on account of the
reason that Chhota Udepur State made its forest Rules in
1934 which were published in 1938 when the reserved forest
area of village Nalejj did not bear any survey number.
However, it was mentioned in the Rules that there was one
reserved forest in village Nalej to the extent of 290 acres
and 1.4 Gunthas. The plaintiffs themselves admitted in
agreement exhibit 59 that survey No.102 was a reserved
forest. It was then held that in respect of a reserved
forest Jagirdars did not have the right to cultivate any
land nor to cut any trees. The only right he had was a right
to graze cattle and to remove some forest produce in accord-
ance with Regulations made by Chhota Udepur State in that
behalf. The Jagirdar did not have any right to any trees
situated in reserved forest. With the merger of Chhota
Udepur State with the then State of Bombay the property
belonging to Chhota Udepur State in the reserved forest
devolved upon the State of Bombay and subsequently upon the
State of Gujarat. The High Court thus accepted the first
contention raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat.
The High Court then considered the second contention
and in this regard observed that Rule 4 of the Forest Rules
of Chhota Udepur State contained the list of reserved trees.
21 kinds of trees had been listed as reserved trees which
included the teak and Mahuda trees which formed the subject
matter of the two transactions between the Jagirdars and the
contractor. The High Court then held that the right to
forest produce which Chhota Udepur State had in respect of
such trees in the "open forest" devolved upon the State of
Bombay, on merger of Chhota Udepur State with it and there-
after upon the State of Gujarat. It was thus held that the
second contention raised on behalf of the State was right
and the same was upheld.
The High Court found no substance in the third conten-
tion and rejected the same. However, the High Court observed
that in the light of the finding recorded on the second
contention it was quite clear that the trees which vested in
the Jagirdars vested in them subject to such right or inter-
est in them which the State had under the Forest Rules of
Chhota Udepur State.
In the 4th and last contention challenging the validi-
ty of the two agreements exhibits 58 and 59, the High Court
observed that there are two aspects of this contention. The
first aspect is that agreements exhibits 58 and 59 were
compulsorily registerable and that since they were not
registered, they did not convey any title to the contractor
in respect of the
570
subject matter of the agreements. The High Court in this
regard held that what was transferred was the standing
timber and not any interest in soil. Therefore, the two
agreements were not compulsorily registerable. The High
Court then considered the second aspect of the 4th conten-
tion. It was argued on behalf of the State that all the
survey numbers to which agreements exhibits 58 and 59 relat-
ed were waste lands and as such under section 8 of the Jagir
Abolition Act they vested in the State. The High Court in
this regard held that forest lands are not waste lands.
Therefore, if they have not vested by virtue of the provi-
sions of section 8 of the Jagir Abolition Act in the State
of Gujarat. The High Court in view of the findings recorded
above on the first and second contentions in favour of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
state, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by
the plaintiffs.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs appellants raised
altogether new line of argument before us. It was submitted
that the appellants did not challenge the existence or the
legality of the Chhota Udepur Forest Rules but their submis-
sion was that the said Rules did not apply to the facts and
circumstances of this case. It has been contended that the
aforesaid forest Rules, together with all other laws of
Chhota Udepur State, stood repealed on 28.7.48 when the
Indian States (Application of Laws) Order 1948 came into
force. On and from 28.7.1948 the Indian Forest Act, and the
Rules made thereunder became applicable. The two agreements
were made on 9.1.1954 and 29.7.1954 long after the Chhota
Udepur Forest Rules were repealed and before the issuance of
the notification by the Government dated 12.5.55 declaring
its intention to make a part of survey No. 102 of Nalej as
reserved forest under Sec.4 of the Indian Forest Act. It has
thus been submitted that so far as the impugned contracts
are concerned the same are not adversely affected either by
the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State or by the Notifica-
tion issued under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. It has
been contented that the High Court was wrong in holding that
the impugued contracts dated 9.1.1954 and 29.7.1954 could
not pass any right on the contractor as the same were hit by
the provisions of Chhota Udepur State Forest Rules, when in
fact those forests Rules had already been repealed.
It was also argued that the High Court’s decision about
reserved forests is based on surmises and so called admis-
sion in the contract exhibit 59. The words used in the
plaint are "alleged jungle bhag" which does not amount to an
admission that it is a reserved forest. In the agreement
exhibit 59 the words used are "So called reserved forest"
and subsequently in the same agreement the words used are
"reserved Padtar (vacant)". It has thus been submitted that
the earlier use of words ’so called’ is not repeated subse-
quently and as such it means that the plaintiffs had denied
571
the same to be reserved forest. As regards Entry No.11 in
the Schedule to the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State, the
High Court itself has observed that no survey number is
mentioned. This itself goes to prove that survey No.102 was
not intended to be covered by the said Entry No.11. Thus it
was not proved that survey No.102 was a reserved forest. It
was further argued that assuming that survey No.102 in
village Nalej was a reserved forest under the Forest Rules
of Chhota Udepur State, it ceased to be so from 28.7.48. It
is an admitted position that the Notification under Section
4 of the Indian Forest Act was published on 12.5.55 and in
case survey No.102 of village Nalej was already continuing
as reserved forest under the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur
State, then there was no necessity at all of issuing a fresh
Notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. The
fact that such Notification was issued on 12th May, 1955
clearly goes to show that survey No.102 did not constitute
reserved forest in between the period 28.7.48 to 12.5.55.
We do not find any force in the above submission made on
behalf of the appellants. So far as the legality of the
Chhota Udepur State’s Forest Rules is concerned, it was
nowhere challenged by the plaintiffs. In the written submis-
sions filed before us on behalf of the appellants the point
made at 1.1 itself reads as under:-
"The appellants do not challenge the existence
or the legality of the Chhota Udepur Forest
Rules (hereinafter the Forest Rules). The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
appellants merely submit that those Rules do
not apply to the facts and circumstances of
this case".
Apart from the above stand taken by the appellants
themselves, Judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Special
Civil Application No. 404/61 State of Gujarat v. Kumar Shri
Ranjit Singhji Bhavani Singhji, Shn C.M. 7halair Jagir
Abolition Officer, Baroda and others decided on 22nd April,
1965 has been placed on record by the Learned counsel for
the appellants. In the aforesaid judgment Shelat, C.J., and
Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) have observed that in 1934,
the State of Chhota Udepur promulgated amended Forest Rules
under Notification of August 1, 1934. The Notification was
issued under the signature of the Ruler himself. These
Rules, therefore,. became and constituted the law of the
State.
The High Court in the impugned order before us has also
placed reliance on such Rules. The High Court has rightly
held that at serial No.11 an area of 290 acres and 14 gun-
thas of village Nalej was declared as reserved forest. No
survey number on that area could have been mentioned because
the reserved forest area of village Nalej did not bear any
survey number at that time. However, it cannot disputed be
that there
572
was one reserved forest in village Nalej admeasuring 290
acres and 14 gunthas and the plaintiffs themselves have
admitted in the plaint that the trees in question were in
the alleged jungle bhag. In the agreement exhibit 59 also
the words used are "so called reserved forest". Thus apart
from the above admissions, the entire case has been contest-
ed in the trial court as well as in the High Court on the
assumption that the trees in question were standing on the
area of reserved forest declared by the Chhota Udepur State.
In case the plaintiffs wanted to show that the trees in
question were not inside the reserved forest area they
should have taken such stand in a clear manner and it .would
have been very easy for them to succeed in the suit without
going through all the various legal submissions made by the
parties. Thus we see no reason to take a different view from
the High Court and we affirm the finding of the High Court
in this regard that the trees in question stood on the area
which was declared as reserved forest under the Forest Rules
framed by the Chhota Udepur State.
In order to appreciate the other submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellants we would refer to the
Indian States (Application of Laws) order, 1948 (hereinafter
referred to as ’Application of Laws order’ 1948).It would be
necessary to reproduce Section 5 which repeals the enact-
ments in force in Indian States.
Section 5:- Repeal of enactments in force in
Indian States:- All enactments in force in the
Province of Bombay and extended to any such
State under paragraph 3 shall stand repealed:
Provided that the appeal by this Order of any
such enactments shall not affect the validity,
invalidity, effect or consequence of any’thing
already done or suffered or any right, title,
obligation or liability already acquired,
accrued or incurred, or any remedy or proceed-
ing in respect thereof, of any release or
discharge of or from any debt, penalty, obli-
gation, liability, claim or demand or any
indemnity already granted, or the proof of any
past act or thing;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
Nor shall the repeal by this order of any
enactment affect any principle or rule of law,
or established jurisdiction, form or course of
pleading, practice or procedure, or existing
usage, custom, privilege, restriction, exemp-
tion, office or appointment, in so far as the
same respectively is not in any way inconsist-
ent with any of the enactments extended under
paragraph 3 of this order, notwithstanding
that the same respectively may have been in
any manner affirmed, recognised or derived by,
in or from any enactment hereby repealed;
573
Nor shall the repeal by this order of any
enactment revive or restore any jurisdiction,
office, custom, liability, right, title,
privilege, restriction, exemption, usage,
practice, procedure or other matter or thing
not now existing or in force immediately
before the date on which this order comes into
force.
There is no doubt that Chhota Udepur State, has been
mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Application of Laws order and
all enactments in force in Chhota Udepur stood repealed and
the Indian Forest Act, 1927 mentioned in Schedule 11 became
applicable, but the proviso to section 5 clearly provides
that the repeal by this order shall not affect any right,
title, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or in-
curred. Thus the Jagirdars had already acquired accrued or
incurred a liability in respect of the trees in question
which were part of the reserved forest as declared under the
Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State. There is nothing on the
record to show that the Jagirdars were cutting trees from
the part of village Nalei which was declared reserved forest
during the time of erstwhile Chhota Udepur State. Jagirdars
could not have given a better title to the contractot in
respect of the trees, which the jagirdars themselves did not
possess. The repealing of the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur
State on 28th July, 1948 did not furnish any additional or
increased rights to the Jagirdars which they did not have
before the merger of Chhota Udepur State.
It has been vehemently contended on behalf of the appel-
lants that it was a case of full proprietorship right in the
Jagir and the Jagirdars had full and complete rights of
ownership in the soil, as well as the trees. Reliance is
placed on the definition of proprietary jagir under Clause
XVIII as conternplated in section 2 of the Jagir Abolition
Act which reads as under:
"Proprietary Jagir" means a Jagir in respect
of which the Jagirdar under the terms of a
grant or agreement or by custom or usage is
entitled to any rights or interest in the
soil".
It has been contended that the Jagirdars in the present
case had not only a right over the trees but also interest
in the soil and as such they had full right to sell the
trees to the contractor. It was submitted that even if there
were any restrictions on cutting of trees so long as forest
rules of Chhota Udepur State remained in force that restric-
tion was removed on 28.7.48 when such rules were repealed by
the Application of Laws order. After the forest rules of
Chhota Udepur State were repealed, the Jagirdars got full
right to alienate the trees as such right was inherent in
the right of proprietary Jagir. It was also submitted that
the Government of Bombay had itself taken policy decision
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
that all contracts made by the Jagirdars prior to the aboli-
tion of jagits on 1.8.54 shall be honoured. It cannot be
considered the intention of the Government to take away such
vested rights
574
in the jagirdar having come into force on 28.7.48, after a
lapse of seven years by issuing a Notification on 12.5.55
under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act. It has also been
contended that the Government has recognized that right of
full ownership in the trees in favour of other jagirdars
similarly situated and there was no justification for taking
such arbitrary and discriminatory action against the plain-
tiffs alone.
The above submissions are based on a total misconcep-
tion. As already mentioned above, there is no question of
taking away any rights. It is no doubt correct that it is a
case of proprietary jagir, but it does not confer any right
in respect of trees standing in a reserved forest. Once it
is established that during the time of existence of erst-
while State of Chhota Udepur an area admcasuring 290 acres
and 14 gunthas in village Nalej was declared as reserved
forest and Jagirdars had no right at all in the trees stand-
ing in such area of reserved forest, the Jagirdars cannot be
considered to have acquired a greater right on 28.7.48 when
the Forest Rules of Chhota Udepur State were repealed by the
Application of Laws order.
There is another insurmountable difficulty for the
plaintiffs in as much as the trees had not been cut and
removed prior to 12.5.55 when admittedly a notification has
been issued under Sec. 4 of the Indian Forest Act also. That
being so no relief can be sought for cutting and removing
the trees in question after 12.5.55 as the survey No.102 has
been constituted as reserved forest under the provisions of
Indian Forest Act The tree in question are teak and
Mahuda trees which were out of 21 kinds of trees declared as
reserved trees which were prohibited from being cut under
the extent of forest rules of Chhota Udepur State. Such
trees even if standing in forest were not allowed to be cut.
Thus examining the matter from any angle, we are already of
the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any
relief as claimed in the suit.
So far as the ground of discrimination is concerned, it
is well settled that in order to establish the same it is
necessary to make out such case in the pleadings. In the
present case no such ground was taken in the plaint nor any
facts or material were placed on record during the trial of
the suit or before the High Court and the same cannot be
considered for the first time before this Court, specially
when the defendants were not given any opportunity to meet
the same.
In our view the High Courts was right in dismissing the
suit. In the result we find no force in this appeal and the
same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the
case we direct no order as to costs.
Y.L. Appeal
dismissed.
575