VIJEY KUMARI THAKUR Vs. H P ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Vijey Kumari Thakur against the Himachal Pradesh Administration, the Divisional Forest Officer and Shri Parmodh Chauhan.

(2.) The allegations giving rise to the aforesaid petition are as below.

(3.) Mrs. L.C. Thompson held Dakoni estate situate in revenue Chak Chhabra, Pargana Dharti Tehsil Kasumpti under a Qabuliat executed by her predecessor in interest in favour of the Government. On 26th of October, 1954, she sold the aforesaid estate to the petitioner who made an Application under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act hereafter to be referred as the Abolition Act for the acquisition of the proprietary rights in the aforesaid land. On 3rd of May, 1956, that application was allowed and a sum of Rs. 342.78 nP adjudged to be the compensation for the acquisition of proprietary rights, was paid by her to the credit of the State Government. The petitioner had purchased the aforesaid estate for the plantation of an orchard and she applied to the Administration for permission to remove and cut the standing trees in order to enable her to convert the land into an orchard. On 27th of October, 1956, the Administration, vide Order No. Ft: 45-311/56 accorded sanction to the petitioner for the felling of trees upon payment of 15 per cent, of the sale price of the trees as required by Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, 1954. On 8th of May, 1958 an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for the sale of the trees standing on the aforesaid land for a sum of Rs. 12,000. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was paid to the petitioner by way of advance and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of the lifting of the timber. The petitioner requested the Divisional Forest Officer to issue an export Permit on payment of fees at the rate of 15 per cent of Rs. 12,000/- the price agreed upon between her and respondent No. 3. The Divisional Forest Officer has not issued the export permit so far, as a result of which damage is being caused to the petitioner and respondent No. 3.