STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. BIHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is challenging in this appeal the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 681/85. It has confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which declared that Bihari Lal (since deceased), father of the respondents, was the owner of the trees, except kher and bamboos, standing on the suit lands and directed the State and its officers to grant necessary permission to the respondents to cut and remove those trees.

(2.) The facts of this case are that the lands in question were originally parts of villages Kel and Babda. They were purchased by one Chandubhai from the Rajpipla State on or before 14-12-1942. They were then sold by Chandubhai to different persons who became occupants of the said lands. Bihari Lal then entered into an agreement in 1964 with those occupants with respect to those trees. Thereafter, he applied to the Divisional Forest Officer for granting required pass or permit to cut and remove those trees. As no material was produced by Bihari Lal to show that he had acquired any right over those trees, the Divisional Forest Officer refused to grant any pass or permit. Then, on 10-4-1968, Bihari Lal again made an application. This time the required permission was granted by the concerned Forest Officer and pursuant to that permission, some trees were cut and removed by Bihari Lal. That permission was for a short duration and expired on 13-6-1968. Again, by his letter dated 7-1-1977, Bihari Lal applied to the forest authorities for granting fresh permission in respect of the remaining trees. It was refused on the ground that the owners of the lands had sold away their rights over the trees to some other contractor and, therefore, no permission could be granted to him. That led Bihari Lal to file a civil suit in the Court of Second Joint civil Judge Bharuch.

(3.) The State resisted the suit by disputing any right of Bihari Lal over those trees and also of the occupants of the lands on the ground that no survey and settlement having been made of those lands under Chapter 8A of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, no rights over the trees were conferred on them. The trial Court negatived these contentions and decreed the suit partly as stated above.