RAJKUMAR RAJINDRA SINGH Vs. H P ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Rajkumar Rajindra Singh against Himachal Pradesh Administration through the Secretary (Forests) and Chief Conservator of Forests and Chaudhary Gopal Singh and Co., the Forest Contractors. The petition arises in the following circumstances: The petitioner is the second son of late Raja Padam Singh the then ruler of Bushahar State hereinafter referred to as the Raja. By his order dated 14-9-1999 B. corresponding to 28th of November, 1942 A.D. the Raja made a gift in favour of the petitioner and his mother Rani Sahiba of Katochar of land comprised in Khatas Nos. 1 and 2, Khatauni Nos. 1 to 25 consisting of 106 plots situate in Chak Adu, Tehsil Rampur, now in Mahasu District, and got mutation effected and sanctioned in pursuance of the aforesaid gift. The gifted land inter alia included Khasra Nos. 606, 222, 34 and 341 and it is in respect of those 4 plots that controversy centres in the instant case. The petitioner was minor when the aforesaid gift was made and his mother granted occupancy rights in favour of certain zamindars in respect of plots Nos. 222 and 341 a,s a result of which the number of the plots gifted increased to 110. By his order dated 25-10-2003 B. corresponding to 7th January 1946, the Raja conferred the entire estate referred to above on the petitioner and in pursuance of the aforesaid order got mutation effected and sanctioned. The Raja and the mother of the petitioner respectively died in April 1947, and July 1949, and as at that time the petitioner was minor his estate was taken under the management and supervision of the Court of Wards. By Notification dated 24th of March 1956, the estate of the petitioner was released from the management of Court of Wards. Shortly afterwards he found that certain old boundary pillars stood in the aforesaid 4 plots and in order to avoid any misunderstanding he made a representation dated 28th of October 1957, to the Chief Conservator of Forests Himachal Pradesh to have the aforesaid boundary pillars removed and also requested him to get the trees marked for sale. The Deputy Commissioner Mahasu was ordered to make an inquiry into the matter. During trio course of the inquiry, the local right holders stated in writing that they had no objection to the felling and sale of the trees by the petitioner provided their grazing rights were not interfered with. As a result of the inquiry he (i.e., the Deputy Commissioner) held that Khasra plots Nos. 34, 222 and 606 were un-measured waste land having no internal boundaries and that according to the revenue papers they were the property of the petitioner. He permitted the Forest Authorities to mark the trees standing on the aforesaid plots silviculturally subject to the rights of the estate right holders, and subject to the furnishing of an affidavit as to his proprietary rights by the petitioner. On 15-12-1958 the aforesaid plots were demarcated on the spot by the Tehsildar Rampur in pursuance of the order of the Deputy Commissioner Mahasu. On 14-2-59 the petitioner brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 the reports submitted by the Tehsildar and the Deputy Commissioner, Mahasu and requested for permission to fell and remove the trees and informed him that he had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 for the sale of the trees, and had received earnest money from him. On 19-21959 respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the Divisional Forest Officer Bushahar Division hereinafter referred to as the Divisional Forest Officer had been instructed to mark trees in the area silviculturally and permitted him to get the trees felled and removed by respondent No. 2. On 5-3-1959, the Divisional Forest Officer informed the petitioner that Range Officer Nogli had been directed to do the needful and further that before the trees could be marked the boundaries had to be demarcated again. A joint demarcation of boundaries was carried out on spot by revenue and forest authorities. This joint demarcation was objected to by the Divisional Forest Officer with respect to Compartment No. VIII B of Khasra No. 341 and the Tehsildar Rampur was required to demarcate the boundaries personally but the demarcation made by him was not accepted by the Forest Department and two Gazetted Officers, one of the Revenue Department and the other of the Forest Department were ordered to submit a report with regard to that compartment and they reported that there was a dispute about it. By letter dated 4-8-1959, the Divisional Forest Officer informed the petitioner that Khasra Nos. 1 and 606 of Chak Adu had been declared to be notified forests under Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act and action was feeing taken to notify Sainji Forests and the remaining Khasra Numbers of Adu Forests as private forests of the petitioner. As required by S. 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act, the petitioner was required to pay a fee of Rs. 22882.98 nP. which fee was deposited. He requested respondent No. 1 to allow respondent No. 2 to fell trees in Compartment Nos. IX(C) and IX(B) in Khasra No. 341 and that request was acceded to by the Divisional Forest Officer, by his letter dated 10-7-1959. Respondent No. 2 commenced working in the aforesaid compartments and engaged a large number of labourers for the felling of the trees. The Divisional Forest Officer vide his letter dated October 1959 informed him that the Conservator of Forests had instructed him to stop felling of any tree in Adu Forests till the demarcation was made and finalised by a responsible revenue officer. He represented against the aforesaid order and the Chief Conservator of Forests and Secretary Forests vide his letter dated 16-11-1959 accorded permission to the petitioner to fell trees from the aforesaid 4 Khasra plots, on the furnishing of an affidavit by him. On 14-2-1959 permits for the removal of walnut barks from all that 4 Khasra Numbers were issued in fayour of the petitioner's contractor Shri Dharampal. On 13-1-1960 the Divisional Forest Officer informed him that the Lieutenant Governor Himachal Pradesh had ordered that security be furnished to the tune of Rs. 5,39,000/- and accordingly he furnished the required security. On 27-5-1960, the respondent No. 1 through the Conservator of Forests Simla Circle asked the petitioner to execute a fresh bond which direction was also complied with. By letter dated 25-5-1960 the Divisional Forest Officer informed him and respondent No. 2 that the timber converted in Compartment No. IX (C) would not be permitted to be removed till further order and that no felling would be permitted in other compartments namely VIII (C), IXA, IXB, X(A) part and X(B) part. The petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 1 on 30th of May, 1960 and on 2-61960 the Divisional Forest Officer informed him to stop work completely in Adu Forest until the matter is finalised. On 23-7-60 the respondent No. 1 informed him that it had been decided to recover from him the price of the trees at the market rates prevailing during the year 1960-61 and by another letter dated 2nd of August 1960 the Divisional Forest Officer informed him that the price of the trees felled from Compartments Nos. IX(B) and IX(C) will be Rs. 305811.70 nP.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the aforesaid orders requiring him to pay royalty were unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires, in view of the facts that respondent No. I had recognized him to be owner of the aforesaid 4 plots, that a declaration under Section 4 of the Private Forests Act had been made in respect of one of the aforesaid plots, that the fee as required by Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Private Forests Act had been deposited by him. His prayer is that respondent No. 1 be ordered by a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order to withdraw the various illegal orders passed by it restraining the petitioner and respondent No. 2 from felling the marked trees standing on the disputed Khasra Nos. 341, 34, 606 and 222 situate in Chak Adu and from removing the timber of the trees felled or which may hereafter be felled.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 has contested the petition and two preliminary objections have been raised namely that the Himachal Pradesh Administration is not a legal entity and cannot be sued and the Union of India is a necessary party and secondly that the title of the petitioner to the disputed property is contested and the proper remedy for him is to file a regular suit.