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

3. The relevant facts for deciding the present appeal are, that the dispute relates to Kutlehar Forest located in the district of Kangra, now a part of Himachal Pradesh State which was earlier a Princely State. The aforesaid Princely State was founded by one Shri Narendra Pal about 300-400 years back whose descendant is respondent No. 1, the said State was conferred 16 `Tappas (chunks of land), four were Jagir `Tappas and twelve Khalsa `Tappas. In Four Jagir `Tapas, the land revenue to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- was assigned to the forefathers of respondent No. 1 by way of `Jagir. In addition to four `Tappas, about twenty thousand acres of land belonging to the `Baratandars (right holders) which was not used for agricultural purposes, was also assigned. The forefathers of respondent No. 1 are stated to have grown larger number of trees over the said land from the period before 1868 A.D. Respondent No. 1 claimed that this ancestors protected and maintained those trees while `Baratandars were granted various rights including the right to get timber on concessional rate for their domestic requirements and the right to graze their cattle. During the settlement operation of civil district of Kangra in 1869, Mr. James Lyall, Settlement Officer, had made a proposal vide the letter 12.2.1868 that the management of forests in four `Tappas be granted to the Raja of Kutlehar. The aforesaid proposal is claimed to have been accepted by the Government of Punjab not only with respect to four `Jagir Tappas but also for all 16 `Tappas including 12 Khalsa `Tappas. The predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 are stated to have started managing the Kutlehar Forest subject to the conditions contained in the approval dated 11.1.1869. The then Government is stated to have started laying claims to the threes grown on the aforesaid land in the year 1915 which was resisted and resulted in the commencement of the fresh correspondence between the parties. The controversies are said to have been set at rest by the Lt. Governor of Punjab in the year 1916 vide letter dated 25.5.1916 by which it was made clear that "All trees growing in the protected forests, subject to the right of `Bartandars and to the other conditions and exceptions hereinafter specified, belong to Government, but have been assigned by Government to the Raja so long as he abaides by the conditions of management hereunto appended".4. In exercise of his powers vested under Section 28, 29(a) and 31 of the Indian Forests Act, 1878, the Lt. Governor of Punjab issued Notification dated 31.8.1915 by which various lands within the limits of various Jagirs including the Jagir of Kutlehar in the district of Kangra, the management of the forests was assigned to the Rajas including the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No. 1, subject to the terms and conditions specified in the aforesaid orders. The Rajas were directed to maintain proper account of the trees standing on the land which could be sold to traders only after the trees were marked by the Forest Department. The trees could be sold only at the rates approved by the Forest Department. The Raja was held entitled to continue to realize grazing fees from the `Gaddies at the rates fixed by government or by mutual agreement the Raja and the `Gaddi subject to the approval by the Deputy Commissioner. However, vide Notification No. 4531-FT. 9CH-58/523 dated 1.10.1958 issued under Section 2(2) of the Forest Act, the respondent was appointed as a Forest Superintendent and the employees working under him in the aforesaid forest declared as Forest Officers with respect to Kutlehar Forest. As per terms of his appointment, the respondent was held entitled to retain 3/4 of the income derivable from the forest whereas 1/4 of the gross income was payable to the government. The conditions explicitly providedRaja shall keep a register showing all the receipts from the sale of timber, bamboos and other forest produce whether to zimdars or to traders. Of this income the Raja shall in case of Kutlehar, receive 3/4 and Governmentvarious forest produces such as resin, timber, bamboo and bhabar grass etc. were required to be auctioned by the respondent like the manner such auctions were held by the Forest Department in respect of government forests in accordance with the working plan and the highest bidder was to be granted the lease. This practice was discontinued after the forests were nationalised by the Appellate-State in the year 1974, when Himachal Pradesh Forest Corporation was incorporated under the provisions ofthe Companies Act, 1956. Produce of the government forests, thereafter, could be sold only to the Forest Corporation. Ever since its incorporation the respondent-corporation continued purchasing timber and other forest produces from respondent No. 1 in accordance with the working plan. The said respondent alleged that in addition to his entitlement of the sale price of the various forest produces sold by him out of the Kutlehar forest to the respondent-corporation, he was also entitled to share the interest on delayed payment, interest on interest and compensation for damages caused to the trees in the course of extraction of timber etc. The basis for his claim as pleaded in writ petition and noticed by the High Court was :-Firstly, the Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted a Committee of officers for determination of the price and terms and conditions of the supply of forest produce sold in favour of the second respondent (HP Forest Corporation) vide notification dated 18.5.1974 (Annexure-C) whereby the fourth respondent (Pricing Committee) on behalf of the Government in its wisdom had equated the petitioner with the Government and directed that the decision regarding the aforesaid payments taken in respect of the Government produce should apply to Kutlehar Forest as well;Secondly, that according to the practice prevailing and trade custom, the petitioner is entitled to his share in the above said additional income; andThirdly, that the Government and the petitioner were similarly circumstanced in so far as the sale of the forest produce is concerned and, therefore, any discrimination of the share of additional amount by way of income is offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution."The respondent asserted that the additional amounts claimed by him were payable even by the private lessees to whom he and the government had sold various forest produces before coming into the existence of the respondent-corporation. The appellant-State was claimed to have constituted a Pricing Committee which decided to apply the decisions taken by it in regard to the sales made by Forest Department to the sales made by the respondent out of the Kutlehar forest as well. To strengthen his claim, the respondent relied upon Article 51 of the Article of Association of the respondent-corporation which provided that the Government could issue directions from time to time which the directors of the company were bound to comply with. The respondent claimed that the corporation had an inescapable obligation to pay to him all the amounts claimed which it had failed to pay despite repeated written requests. The decision qua interest on interest is stated to have been taken by the Pricing Committee with the object to curb the pendency of belated payments attributed to the respondent-corporation. The decision regarding penalty of the illicit/outshaped blazes was stated to have been taken on 17.8.1982. Levy of extension fee was imposed vide decision of the Pricing Committee dated 4.12.1986. The aforesaid decisions are stated to have been made applicable in the case of the respondent vide Item No. VIII recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting held on 16.5.1988.5. The Pricing Committee in its meeting held on 6.10.1990 was stated to have reviewed the guidelines issued earlier in respect of the dealings of the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation with the Government and the royalty to be charged from, and levies and penalties to be imposed upon the corporation in respect of the working of the forest by the corporation. The Kutlehar Forest is stated to have been resumed by the State of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification dated 19.1.1990 issued under Section 3 of the Punjab Resumption of Jagir Act, 1957. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests was directed to take over management and possession of Kutlehar forest from respondent No. 1 with the assistance of the Collector. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition (WP No. 42/90) with respect to his pre-existing rights as also his entitlement to retain the forest by challenging the validity of the notification. Thereafter, he also challenged the Himachal Pradesh (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 by filing a writ petition (W.P. No. 707/92). During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition No. 42/90, respondent No. 1 filed CWP No. 528/91 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh claiming the relief on the basis of the decisions of the Pricing Committee being applicable to him. The claim of the respondent No. 1 was resisted on various grounds includingthat the petitioner is not the owner of the forest;(ii) that it is a case of enforcing contractual rights which can be done by way of a Civil Suit and not through this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable;(iii) that the decision of the fourth respondent (Pricing Committee) regarding the payment of additional amounts in question, such as, interest on belated payments, interest on interest, penalty on illicit out shaped blazes, levy of extension fees etc. to the petitioner is not binding on the first or the second respondent (HP Forest Corporation);(iv) that the threes are not revenue but capital and that since the property in the trees is that of the first respondent, the first respondent is not liable to pay the share out of the damage caused to the trees etc.the pleas of the appellant, the High Court allowed the writ petition vide the judgment impugned in this

Court's reasoning:
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.