STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJA MAHENDRA PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Despite independence of the country about half a century back and the establishment of a democratic set up with the declaration in the Constitution to have a Secular, Socialist Republic in the country, there are people and organisations who have not mentally reconciled with the realities of life and the writings in the chapters of history for various reasons including their vested interests. Ignoring the establishment of the rule of law and the development of the constitutional set up, they have made and are making fanatic efforts to sabotage the path of the goal intended to achieve the welfare of the society. Ignoring the verdicts of this Court in Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala; (1973) Suppl. SCR 1 , R. C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 3 SCR 530 and Madhav Rao v. Union of India (1971) 3 SCR 9 and various other pronouncements, efforts have been made to reverse back the wheel of history merely for personal gains to quench the lust for money and power. The case of respondent No. 1 in this litigation is one of such persons who has done everything possible to utilise the forum of the Courts for the attainment of his personal benefits by attempting to utilise the alleged constitutional guarantees in his favour. A ruler of the yester years, the respondent No. 1, approached the High Court for issuance of the command to the State Forest Corporation by treating him equivalent to the Government of Himachal Pradesh with conferment a monetary gains which were permissible to the State Government on the basis of the decision of the Pricing Committee. The High Court granted prayer sought for by the judgment impugned in this appeal. The Maharaja was held, to have been equated with the Government and entitled to the relief claimed by him as according to the High Court he was found to have been deprived of the right to life as envisaged by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The High Court observed "We have held that the petitioner is entitled to enforce his claim particularly the right to his livelihood through this writ petition." It was further held, "he was, for all purposes, possessed power of the government. The Court further observed, "in fact the Pricing Committee on behalf of the Government, in its wisdom, appear to have equated the petitioner with the government and directed that the decision regarding the aforesaid payments taken in respect of the government product shall also apply to Kutlehar Forest as well." By way of issuance of the writ of mandamus, the respondent No. 1 was held entitled to the interest on the delayed payment of royalty, damages with respect to illicit felling plus 100 per cent penalty for the illegally felled trees. He was further conferred with the grant of interest on interest and share in the levy of extension fee chargeable by the State from the respondent-corporation under the terms of the agreement or the provisions of law applicable in the case.

(2.) The judgment impugned in this appeal has been assailed on various grounds including the ground of non-maintainability of the writ petition error on the part of the High Court to equate the State Government with a private person, disentitlement of the respondent to claim a share in the penal interest and levies which the State was entitled to impose and recover as a consequence of its sovereign functions.

(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 large number of trees over the said land from the period before 1868 A. D. Respondent No. 1 claimed that his 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 trees 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 abides by the conditions of management hereunto appended".