Case: Divisional Forest Officer, Himachal Pradesh Anr Vs. Shri Daut &amp; Ors

2. In order to appreciate the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts. Land measuring 27 bighas and 16 biswas comprised in khasra Nos. 452/1, 453, 453/1, 40, 100 and 440 and situated in village Kadiali, Tehsil Theog, District Mahasu, belonged to Government and was under the tenancy of Moti Ram. He filed an application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 - hereinafter referred to as the Act-and was granted proprietary rights in the land by the Compensation Officer by order dated August 30, 1957. Provisional compensation was assessed at Rs. 62.56 P. The Compensation Officer held that "as the applicant is a cultivating tenant over the aforesaid land he is entitled to acquire right, title and interest of the said land owner on payment of Rs. 62.56 as compensation which should be deposited." On September 9, 1957, a certificate of ownership was granted to Moti Ram on his depositing Rs. 62.56 Moti Ram died and the land was mutated in favour of his wife Smt. Besroo and his daughter Smt. Rupi. The respondents applied for permission to sell the trees on their land, and the Divisional Forest Officer by order dated July 18, 1958, permitted them to sell the trees from their land on certain conditions. On November 15, 1958, the respondents deposited Rs 1267/-13 P. as government fee, but the Divisional Forest Officer failed to give clear orders for felling the trees and taking out the converted timber from the said land. The Chief conservator Officer, by letter dated July 12, 1961, informed the respondents that the matter was being inquired from the Conservator of Forests Simla Circle. Thereupon, not hearing anything further, the respondents flied a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution3. It was urged before the Judicial Commissioner, on behalf of the Divisional Forest Officer that the respondents had no interest in the trees standing on their land as the trees were not land as defined in Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that the Compensation Officer was not competent to grant, and in fact, did not grant proprietary rights in the trees to the deceased Moti Ram. The learned Judicial Commissioner, following Vijey Kumari Thakur v. H. P. Administration, AIR 196l Him Pra 32, held that the appellants were estopped from contending that the respondents had no interest in the trees. He further held that the respondents were granted permission to sell the trees standing on their land and they had in fact entered into an agreement to sell to a third party and they had deposited Rs. 1267.13 P. and had thus acted to their detrimentAs stated already, the learned Judicial Commissioner allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus. With certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner the appellants have filed this appeal.

Reasoning: In our opinion those cases are distinguishable inasmuch as they deal with the question whether trees could be sold or assigned under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act without infringing the prohibitions contained in that Act forbidding sale of land by agriculturists in favour of non-agriculturists6. There can be no doubt that trees are capable of being transferred apart from land, and if a person transfer trees or gives a right to a person to cut trees and remove them it cannot be said that he has transferred land. But we are concerned with a different question and the question is whether under S. 11 of the Act trees are included within the expression "right, title and interest of the land-owner in the land of the tenancy."It seems to us that this expression "right, title and interest of the landowner in the land" is wide enough to include trees standing on the land. It is clear that under S. 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, unless a different intention is expressed or implied, transfer of land would include trees standing on it. It seems to us that we should construe S. 11 in the same mannerBut no such contention seems to have been raised in the written statement filed by the appellants. It might have been different if it had been proved that the portion of the area transferred to Moti Ram was a natural forestWe are unable to accede to this contentionIf the contention of the learned counsel were correct, even cultivable land which is expressly mentioned in S. 84 (a) (i) would not vest in the tenant under S. 11 of the Act. Section 11 is drafted very simply and under sub-s. (6) the tenant becomes the owner of the land comprised in the tenancy on and from the date of grant of the certificate, and it is expressly provided that the right, title and interest of the landowner in the said land shall determine. In the context the word "owner" is very comprehensive indeed, and it implies that all rights, title and interest of the landowner pass to the tenant. Further, it seems to us that it would lead to utter confusion if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted. There would be interminable disputes as to the rights of the erstwhile landowners to go on the lands of erstwhile tenants and cut trees or take the fruit. Moreover, under S. 15 of the Act we would, following the same reasoning, have to hold that the trees on the land of the landowner did not vest in the State. This could hardly have been the intention.