Case: Rameshwar Proshad Khandelwal &amp; Others Vs. Commissioners, Land Reforms &amp; Jagirs, Madhya Bharat (Now Madhya Pradesh) &amp; Others

take away the elephants and the defendant, who was a transferee from the licensee; only failed because the transfer was not with the permission of the licensor. A perusal, however, of the term of the license in that case shows that it was not a mere license but included also a grant of the elephants, which might be captured, for the license said that permission was given for digging 50 elephants pits and for removing an taking the elephants from the pits and for doing everything necessary for such taking. When the license permits any person to do something on immovable property and also includes permission to take away movable property the license may operate not only as a license but also as a grant for movable property. But in this case, there was merely a license by the forest authorities in favour of the petitioners. There could be no. grant of the trees by these authorities, for, as already stated above, they had no. power to make such a grant. The license, therefore, that was granted by the forest authorities, cannot, in the circumstances of this case, pass property in the trees to the petitioners. 12. Nor can Ss. 26 (2) (a) and 34 of the Forests Act help the petitioners to claim property in the trees. Section 26 (2) (a) appears in the Chapter of "Reserved Forests", which are declared as such by notification, under S. 4. There is nothing to show that the forests in question were so declared. But apart from that, . S. 26 (2) (a) merely saves a person from certain penalties if permission has been granted to him. It cannot, therefore, help the petitioners. Section 34 applies to "protected forests". In the case protected forests also, the Government has to issue a notification under S. 29, and there is nothing to show that this was done in these cases before the relevant dates. Further S. 34 allows a person to do something with permission in writing of the forest officer which would otherwise be prohibited under Chap. IV relating to protected forests. This section is of no. avail to the petitioners so far as the main point is concerned, namely, the passing of the property in the trees to them. As a matter of act, there is nothing in the Forests Act, which deals with the sale of forest produce and lease of forest lands for exploitation. The Act deals with the management of forests ; and tower for sale of forest produce and lease, of forest lands for exploitation has to be found elsewhere. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to have legally acquired property in the trees from which they made charcoal and kattha etc. by virtue of the permission or license granted to them by the forest authorities. 13. We now turn to the Pohri and Palpur petitioners. Their case may be dealt with together. The permission granted in their case to the jagirdars was to grant contracts for cutting trees in certain areas up to 30th June 1953. The jagirdars, however, granted the contracts up to 31st May 1955. The first question, therefore, that arises is whether the jagirdars could have granted contracts for a period longer than that sanctioned. It is urged that S. 3 of the Cutting Act does not bar the grant of contracts by the jagirdars ; it only bars the cutting of the tree. Here again we do not think it necessary to decide whether S. 3 of the Cutting Act bars contracts for a period longer than that permitted by the Jagir. Commissioner or only bars cutting of trees. Assuming that it only bars cutting of trees that would not improve the position of the petitioners. In these cases the permission was only up to 30th June 1953. Therefore, unless fresh permission was granted after June 1953, or the Government of Madhya Bharat granted fresh contracts after that date, the petitioners would have no. right to work the forests after 30th June 1953, and claim property in the trees felled by them, and in kattha and charcoal manufactured by them out of these trees. It is not the petitioners case that the Jagir Commissioner granted further permission to them to cut the trees after 30th June 1953. They rely on certain acts of the forest officers, which we have already mentioned to show that fresh contracts were granted and therefore property in the trees passed to them. The same arguments were addressed in the case of these petitioners as in the case of the Sirsi petitioners to show that by the acts of the various forest officers property in the trees passed to the petitioners. We have dealt with these arguments in considering the case of Sirsi petitioners, and for the same reasons, we hold that property in the trees did not pass to the petitioners in these two cases also. 14. Other points raised in the petitions were not argued and we need not refer to them. 15. Our conclusion, therefore, is that in all these cases, no. legal right to property in the trees passed to the petitioners. It is well settled that no. petition under Art. 32 is maintainable, unless it is shown that the petitioner has some fundamental right. The fundamental right claimed in these cases is that the property which the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) is not permitting the petitioners to remove from the forests is property which they have a right to hold and dispose of. This could only be so if the property in the trees or the charcoal or kattha which have been manufactured, passed to the petitioners. No. such property, however, passed to the petitioners. In the circumstances they have no. right to maintain these petitions on the ground that they have a fundamental right to hold and dispose of their property, in the absence of any law authorising the State to deprive them of it.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]It is, however, unnecessary for the present purposes to decide this question, and we shall proceed on the footing that the sanction granted by the Jagir Commissioner on 19th January 1954, to these petitioners in respect of their contracts of November 1952 was valid. Those contracts, however, all expired on 30th June 1954. The property, which the petitioners now claim as theirs, was clearly all acquired, if it could be acquired at all, after 30th June 1954All jagir forest became the property of the State from 4th December 1952. it was the State, therefore, which could grant extension of the terms of the contracts after 30th June 1954. The extension granted by the forest authorities would only confer property in the trees on the petitioners, if the forest authorities had been delegated the power by the Government to sell the trees in the forests. The petitioners in this connexion rely on a notification of 5th August 1954, by which all contracts for the sale of forest coupes, &c. and leases of forest lands could be executed on behalf of the Rajpramukh by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Conservator of Forests, Divisional Forest Officers and District Forest Officers. This notification, however, was under Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution and merely specifies officers who will make the contracts on behalf of the Rajpramukh. It does not confer on them power to sell the property of the State. The notification only authorises the various categories of forest officers to execute contracts after the sale has been sanctioned by the proper authority entitled to sanction the same. The power to make sales was given by letter No. 770/XV /1951 (102) /50, ated 7th March 1951, from the Development Secretary to the Chief Conservator of Forests, by which Divisional Forest Officers, Conservators of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forests were authorised to sanction sales by auction of forest produce up to Rs. 2, 000, Rs. 10, 000, and Rs. 25, 000 respectively. Nothing has been brought to our notice to show that the forest officers were authorised to grant extensions of the period of contracts. It is not in dispute that though the petitioners might have signed some agreement forms, they were never completed and signed by any officer of the Forest Department and no. sale by auction took place. It is clear, therefore that though the forest officers had allowed the petitioners to work in the forests, there was no. legal transfer of the title to the trees in favour of the petitioners at any time either by grant of a fresh contract or by the extension of the period of the contracts, which expired on 30th June 1954. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim that the property in the trees in the areas worked by them passed to them legally through any sale made in their favour by the State or by any officer duly authorised to make the salebut that, in our opinion, has no. relevance so far as these petitioners are concerned for their contracts had expired on 30th June l954 and we are here concerned with the question whether property in the trees passed to the petitioners thereafter. The conclusion, therefore, which is inevitable on these facts, is that there was no. extension of the period of the contracts in favour of the petitioners after 30th June 1954, and no. sale of the trees in the areas worked by them in their favour, and the property in the trees never passed to them in lawA perusal, however, of the term of the license in that case shows that it was not a mere license but included also a grant of the elephants, which might be captured, for the license said that permission was given for digging 50 elephants pits and for removing an taking the elephants from the pits and for doing everything necessary for such taking. When the license permits any person to do something on immovable property and also includes permission to take away movable property the license may operate not only as a license but also as a grant for movable property. But in this case, there was merely a license by the forest authorities in favour of the petitioners. There could be no. grant of the trees by these authorities, for, as already stated above, they had no. power to make such a grant. The license, therefore, that was granted by the forest authorities, cannot, in the circumstances of this case, pass property in the trees to the petitioners12. Nor can Ss. 26 (2) (a) and 34 of the Forests Act help the petitioners to claim property in the treesThis section is of no. avail to the petitioners so far as the main point is concerned, namely, the passing of the property in the trees to them. As a matter of act, there is nothing in the Forests Act, which deals with the sale of forest produce and lease of forest lands for exploitation. The Act deals with the management of forests ; and tower for sale of forest produce and lease, of forest lands for exploitation has to be found elsewhere. We are, therefore, of opinion that the petitioners cannot be said to have legally acquired property in the trees from which they made charcoal and kattha etc. by virtue of the permission or license granted to them by the forest authoritiesS. 26 (2) (a) merely saves a person from certain penalties if permission has been granted to him. It cannot, therefore, help the petitioners. Section 34 applies to "protected forests"15. Our conclusion, therefore, is that in all these cases, no. legal right to property in the trees passed to the petitioners. It is well settled that no. petition under Art. 32 is maintainable, unless it is shown that the petitioner has some fundamental right. The fundamental right claimed in these cases is that the property which the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) is not permitting the petitioners to remove from the forests is property which they have a right to hold and dispose of. This could only be so if the property in the trees or the charcoal or kattha which have been manufactured, passed to the petitioners. No. such property, however, passed to the petitioners. In the circumstances they have no. right to maintain these petitions on the ground that they have a fundamental right to hold and dispose of their property, in the absence of any law authorising the State to deprive them of it13. We now turn to the Pohri and Palpur petitioners. Their case may be dealt with together. The permission granted in their case to the jagirdars was to grant contracts for cutting trees in certain areas up to 30th June 1953. The jagirdars, however, granted the contracts up to 31st May 1955. The first question, therefore, that arises is whether the jagirdars could have granted contracts for a period longer than that sanctioned. It is urged that S. 3 of the Cutting Act does not bar the grant of contracts by the jagirdars ; it only bars the cutting of the tree. Here again we do not think it necessary to decide whether S. 3 of the Cutting Act bars contracts for a period longer than that permitted by the Jagir. Commissioner or only bars cutting of trees. Assuming that it only bars cutting of trees that would not improve the position of the petitioners. In these cases the permission was only up to 30th June 1953. Therefore, unless fresh permission was granted after June 1953, or the Government of Madhya Bharat granted fresh contracts after that date, the petitioners would have no. right to work the forests after 30th June 1953, and claim property in the trees felled by them, and in kattha and charcoal manufactured by them out of these trees. It is not the petitioners case that the Jagir Commissioner granted further permission to them to cut the trees after 30th June 1953. They rely on certain acts of the forest officers, which we have already mentioned to show that fresh contracts were granted and therefore property in the trees passed to them. The same arguments were addressed in the case of these petitioners as in the case of the Sirsi petitioners to show that by the acts of the various forest officers property in the trees passed to the petitioners. We have dealt with these arguments in considering the case of Sirsi petitioners, and for the same reasons, we hold that property in the trees did not pass to the petitioners in these two cases also14. Other points raised in the petitions were not argued and we need not refer to them.