JANU CHANDRA WAGHMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions raise common questions as to constitutional validity of the Maharash -tra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, being Act No. 29 of 1975, as amended by Act No. 72 of 1975. The constitutional validity of the said Act has been mainly challenged on three grounds: (a) that the State Legislature of Maharash -tra lacks legislative competence to enact the measure, particularly Section 3 thereof, to the extent to which it purports to vest in the State Government the ' forest produce' while acquiring all private forests in the State, (b) that the said enactment, particularly Sections 3 and 5 thereof, contra -vene the freedom of trade, commerce and intercorse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution and (c) that the en -actment, particularly Section 3 thereof, which purports to acquire not merely of mines and minerals, major as well as minor but also mining leases, licences and other rights in mines and minerals conflicts with and trenches upon the occu -pied field under the Central Act 67 of 1957 - Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development, Act, 1957 - passed by Parliament under Entry 54 of List I and therefore is void.

(2.) THE aforesaid bunch of three peti -tions have been referred to this larger Bench as they involve common grounds of challenge to the constitutional vali - dity of the aforesaid Act but it will be sufficient if facts pertaining to Special Civil Application No. 1553 of 1974 in which common questions were raised for the first time are set out in detail.

(3.) FURTHER , during the pendency of the petition the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 being Act No. 29 of 1975 was passed on 29 -8 - 1975 and it came into operation on 30 -8 -1975 (being the ' appointed day' under Section 2 (a) of the Act). Under Section 3 thereof all private forests were compulsorily acquired and stood vested in the State with effect from the appointed day (30 -8 -1975). The Act 29 of 1975 as it then stood did not define the expression ' Fo -rest' but Section 2 (f) thereof defined the ex -pression ' private forest' as meaning ' any forest which is not the property of the Government' and further including six heads specified in clauses (i) to (vi), but sig -nificantly enough the expression ' forest produce' was neither defined in Section 2 nor was referred to in Section 3 under which all private forests stood vested in the State Government with effect from the ap -pointed day. During the hearing of the petition the principal contention of the petitioners before the Division Bench was that the process of cutting, dismem -bering and converting trees (9719 teak trees and 12,000 injaili trees as also other trees of minor importance) into logs had been completed and such cut logs of wood had been stored in the godowns in the forest long prior to the coming into force of Act 29 of 1975, that such forest produce (felled material) was an inde -pendent and distinct species of property, that the legislative head ' forest' in Entry 19 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution would not cover such forest produce and therefore the same would not vest in the State Government under Section 3 of the said Act.