VORA IBRAHIM AKBARALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals relate to certain contracts regarding exploiting of certain kinds of trees and most of the material points which arise in these appeals are common. It would therefore be convenient to dispose of these appeals by one judgment though we shall deal with the facts and questions involved in each appeal separately. Letters Patent Appeal No. 12 of 1966.

(2.) The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal Vora Ibrahim Akbarali was the respondent in Second Appeal No. 756 of 1960 in the High Court of Gujarat and was the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 308 of 1957 in the Court of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Baroda. The respondents are the State of Gujarat and the Chief Conservator of Forest who were the defendants in the suit. The original plaintiff had filed the suit on the basis of a contract with one Ranjitsinhji Gemalsinhji who was the occupant of certain lands covered by 104 survey numbers and situated on the out-skirts of Ronvad village and his case was that by a sale-deed dated June 23 1954 Ranjitsinhji had sold the Mahura and other miscellaneous trees standing on those survey numbers to the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that by virtue of the document which was passed by Ranjitsinhji in his favour he had a right to cut fell and transport the trees standing on those survey numbers and to convert them Into charcoal. According to the plaintiff his transferor Ranjitsinhji was the occupant of the lands on which the trees were standing and therefore he was the full owner of the trees over which by virtue of the aforesaid document the plaintiff had obtained title. According to the plaintiff the village was a Dumala village and Ranjitsinhji was the Dumaldar who had transferred the right to the trees and put them to use as provided In the document which was passed by the Dumaldar in favour of the plaintiff. The Forest Department had however refused to issue transport passes which would enable the plaintiff to remove the produce of the trees and it was this action of the State that was Challenged by the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit trees and also for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the operation of felling and cutting of trees and removal of charcoal and other products from the area in dispute. The plaintiff prayed for an injunction compelling the defendants to issue the requisite transit passes.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit on various grounds. The defendants denied that the plaintiff had any right over the suit trees and contended that the plaintiffs transferor had no rights to the trees standing on the suit lands and that therefore the plaintiff could not have any title in the suit trees. It was also contended that the suit lands were governed by the provisions of the Jagirs Abolition Act and that as some of the lands had remained uncultivated for a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the Jagirs Abolition Act came into force the title of the Dumaldar to the waste lands and the trees standing on those lands was extinguished. It was also denied that the defendants or the Revenue Department of the State had recognized the rights of the plaintiffs transferor as the owner of the trees.