EMPEROR Vs. YELLAPPA RAMANGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted of a breach of Rule 2 framed by the Local Government under Section 75, Clause (c) of the Indian Forest Act. The breach consisted in the accused Nos. 1 and 2 having cut certain sandal-wood trees grown on their occupancy number. Both under the rule as well as under the clause of the section under which the rule is framed it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the trees said to have been cut belonged to Government or were the property of Government. In the present case the occupancy was granted many years ago and it is not disputed that the sandal- wood trees in question came into existence long after the first survey settlement. Whatever the respective ages of these trees might be, it is not disputed that in no case did the age exceed sixteen years. The trial Magistrate decided the case on the footing that the sandal-wood trees were among the reserved trees. The reference to this Court is made on that assumption and the case is argued before us on that basis. Under Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code all the trees except those that are reserved would belong to the occupant. The learned Government Pleader has relied upon the second paragraph of the section for the purpose of making it clear that in the case of settlements prior to the passing of Bombay Act I of 1865 the right to teak, blackwood and sandalwood trees was not conceded to the occupants. - The first survey settlement in this village is stated before us to have been made prior to the passing of this Act, and the revision Survey Settlement was made after the passing of the Land Revenue Code. It may be taken that the sandal wood trees were among the reserved trees.

(2.) Proceeding on that footing it seems to me that the question is whether the reservation would apply to the trees existing at the date of the first settlement or to all subsequent growths. Rule 93, Clause (vii) of the Rules framed under Section 214 provides that when the right of Government to the trees in a survey number has been once disposed of to the occupant or when all the reserved trees have been once cut and removed the Government will have no further claim to trees which may otherwise grow in the number or which may spring up from the old roots or stumps so long as the land continues in occupation. This rule makes it clear that all the reserved trees may be cut and removed, and that after they are cut and removed, the Government has no further right to such trees growing in the occupancy number so long as the occupancy continues. We do not know in this case, for instance, whether there were any sandalwood trees originally on this survey number at the date of the settlement and whether they were cut or not. If any such trees existed originally, they must have been cut and removed, as the trees in question wore comparatively recent growths, and as it is not suggested that there is any old tree on the number. Assuming, however, as suggested by the Government Pleader, that there were no such trees at the date of the grant and that there never has been any previous cutting of sandalwood trees in this occupancy number by the Government, the question is whether the sandalwood trees which have admittedly grown on the land during the occupation of the land and after the date of the settlement belong to the occupant or to the Government. It seems to me that Rule 93 indicates that the right of the Government is confined to reserved trees existing at the date of the settlement. and that all subsequent growths belong to the occupant. This view of Rule 93 appears to me to be consistent with the terms of Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and to indicate the true meaning of that section. Apart from this rule, there is nothing in the language of Section 40 of the Code to show that all future growths of sandalwood trees or rather of reserved trees would belong to the Government.

(3.) The language would apply ordinarily to existing growths of reserved trees at the date of the settlement: and the doubt, if any, is removed by the wording of Rule 93, which clearly indicates the meaning of the section in that sense. The plain and natural meaning of the rule is that the existing reserved trees belong to the Government, and that all future growths belong to the occupant. Thus the trees in question, which are not shown to have been in existence at the date of the settlement, belong to the occupant. I have referred to the date of the settlement, as we are concerned with a case in which the settlement was completed prior to the passing of the Land Revenue Code.