BABAJAN H Vs. DY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BHADRAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a Forest Contractor. By registered deed executed in 1973, petitioner claims to have purchased 'malki' in Sy. No. 60 of Kadekal village. The land consisted of 32 Blocks and the 'malki' was the right to cut and remove the firewood and bamboo trees in all the 32 Blocks. On application for permission to cut and remove the 'malki 'the authorities in the Forest Department issued "maafi Passes" enabling the petitioner to cut and remove the firewood and Bamboo trees. The petitioner was to cut the Bamboo tree and convert them as 'chips' before they are removed from the Forest area. It appears that the authorities in the forest Department have been demanding seigniorage charges ; petitioner has paid the seigniorage charges; he contends that the demand and collection of these charges was illegal, as the land was a 'hiduvali' land and he had paid consideration to the hidavalidar in 1973. The prayer of the petitioner is that Seigniorage charges collected form him should be refunded, as it is an illegal collection. Petitioner claims refund of Rs. 24,661-07 and also prays that he may be permitted to remove the firewood. Bamboo and Bamboo chips without payment of seigniorage charges. This ineffect is the relief sought, as detailed in I. A. for amendment.

(2.) The respondents have not filed statement of objections ; but Sri Abdul khader, HCGP, contended that the land is not a Hiduvali land ; it was granted to 32 Harijans under Darkhast Rules. Since the land had to be made fit for cultivation, petitioner was permitted to clear the forest produce on his paying seigniorage charges. Petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount demanded and had obtained Maafi Passes. The grantees or allottees had only right of cultivation and not to the trees on the land. Hence irrespective of the agreement between the allotees and the petitioner, the allotees not being owners could not transfer rights which did not exist in them. Their limited right of cultivation on the land, which is resumable by the Government, at any time does not create any right in them, much less, in the petitioner. He maintained that this is not a case of illegal collection or unjust enrichment ; petitioner cannot claim refund of the amount, voluntarily paid by him. The Government Pleader has placed reliance on the records, which are made available to the Court.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration are : (i) What is the nature of the land and whether the petitioner can claim right to the trees and Bamboos without payment of seigniorage charges, on the strength of agreement between him and his Vendors (ii) Whether petitioner, having voluntarily made payments and enjoyed the benefits of forest produce, can be permitted to claim refund, on the allegation that it is an illegal payment