Case: State Of H.P Vs. Raja Mahendra Pal

property and that he was merely an officer appointed by the Government in exercise of its sovereign power. But for his position as a Forest Officer, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the forest or even enter into it. The arrangements made earlier in the form of conferment of rights upon his forefather stood extinguished and merged with his position as a Forest Officer of the State Government. He was entitled only to such benefits to which the forest officer is entitled. His entitlement in the present case was restricted only to the extent of sharing of the royalty and not for anything more. Even in the settlement report of 1916 which was amended on 30.7.1945 regarding Kutlehar Forest it was provided that all trees growing in the protected forest subject to the rights of Burtandars and to the other conditions and exceptions specified therein belonged to the Government which were assigned to the Raja so long as he abides the conditions of management or such other conditions as were specified at the time or which might be substituted by other terms at any time. 12. Reliance upon the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa and others v. Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and another, AIR 1985 SC 1293 is also of no help to respondent No. 1. In that case it was observed that "royalty" is not a term used in legal parlance for the price of goods sold." It was observed that the royalty was defined to mean, a payment reserved by the grantor of a patent, lease of a mine or similar right, and payable proportionately to the use made of the right by the grantee, which shall on payment of money, but may be a payment in kind being the part of the produce of the exercise of the right. The judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Raja Bahadur Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax Bihar and Orissa, AIR 1943 PC 153 had held that royalty was an income flowing from the convenant in the lease. While dealing with the question of royalty. It was held : "These are periodical payments, to be made by the lessee under his convenants in consideration of the benefits which he is granted by the lessor. What these benefits may be is shown by the extract from the lease quoted above, which illustrates how inadequate and fallacious it is to envisage the royalties as merely the price of the actual tons of coal. The tonnage royalty is indeed only payable when the coal or coke is gotton and despatched : but that is merely the last stage. As preliminary and ancillary to that culminating act, liberties are granted to enter on the land and search, to dig and sink pits, to erect engines and machinery, coke ovens furnaces and form railways and roads. All these and the like liberties show how fallacious it is to treat the lease as merely one for the acquisition of a certain number of tons of coal, or the agreed item of royalty as merely the price of each ton of coal." Neither the Judicial Committee of the Privy council nor this Court had held or referred to that the item like extension fee, interest, interest on interest, and payment for damage caused could be included within the ambit of them `royalty. The aforesaid payments were thus recoverable only on the basis of the contract or the statutory provisions. In Inderjeet Singh Sial and another v. Karamchand Thapar and others, 1995(6) SCC 166 it was held : "In its primary and natural sense `royalty, in the legal world, is known as the equivalent or translation of jura regalia or jura regia. Royal rights and prerogatives of a sovereign are covered thereunder. It its secondary sense the word `royalty would signity, as in mining leases, that part of the reddendum, variable though, payable in cash or kind, for rights and privileges obtained. It is found in the clause of the deed by which the grantor reserves something to himself out of that which he grants. But "What is in a name ? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So said Shakespeare." 13. The Court further held that the commodity goes by its value and not by the wrapper in which it is packed. If the thought is clear, its translation in words, spoken or written, may more often than not, tend to be faulty. The same substance under the facts of the particular case has to be understood before applying it in legal manner. This Court has very clearly held that royalty in general connotes the States share in the goods upon which the rights of its exploitation are conferred upon any person or the group of persons. If the royalty cannot be claimed by any individual, much less the controvercial items being its attribute, even if assumed, can be claimed by a citizen.14. The subjects covered by item Nos. XI, XII, XIII and XVII have thus to be understood in this context which leave no doubt in our mind that the said claims against the forest corporation covered by the aforesaid items owed their origin to the exercise of the sovereign rights vested in the appellant State. No private citizen, unless specifically authorised in that behalf under the provisions of law could prefer such claims. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in allowing the aforesaid claims in favour of the respondent No. 1. The observations in Para No. 21 of the impugned judgment are, therefore, benefit of any legal substance and thus cannot be upheld.15. We, are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained even on merits and is liable to be quashed inasmuch as no statutory right enforceable under law existed in favour of the respondent No. 1 regarding the enforcement of which a command could have been issued in the form of a writ of mandamus.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. The Court further held that the commodity goes by its value and not by the wrapper in which it is packed. If the thought is clear, its translation in words, spoken or written, may more often than not, tend to be faulty. The same substance under the facts of the particular case has to be understood before applying it in legal manner. This Court has very clearly held that royalty in general connotes the States share in the goods upon which the rights of its exploitation are conferred upon any person or the group of persons. If the royalty cannot be claimed by any individual, much less the controvercial items being its attribute, even if assumed, can be claimed by a citizen.14. The subjects covered by item Nos. XI, XII, XIII and XVII have thus to be understood in this context which leave no doubt in our mind that the said claims against the forest corporation covered by the aforesaid items owed their origin to the exercise of the sovereign rights vested in the appellant State. No private citizen, unless specifically authorised in that behalf under the provisions of law could prefer such claims. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in allowing the aforesaid claims in favour of the respondent No. 1. The observations in Para No. 21 of the impugned judgment are, therefore, benefit of any legal substance and thus cannot be upheld.15. We, are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained even on merits and is liable to be quashed inasmuch as no statutory right enforceable under law existed in favour of the respondent No. 1 regarding the enforcement of which a command could have been issued in the form of a writ of mandamus.