LACHMAN DAS Vs. PUNJAB GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls to be determined in this second appeal is whether the Provincial Government have complied with the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 80, Forest Act. This section declares that the Provincial Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the Provincial Government thinks fit, and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such term, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the rights suspended in the portion so closed.

(2.) It appears that on 8 February 1942 the Provincial Government issued a notification under Section 38, Forest Act declaring-that Clause (b) and (c) of Section 30 and Secs.32, 33 and 34 of the said Act shall apply to the plot of land in suit for a period of ten years with effect from the date of the notification. On 8 February 1942 notifications were issued under Secs.30 and 32 of the said Act concerning the rules which were applicable to the land in question.

(3.) Two years later, i.e. on 13 March 1944 the plaintiffs who are non-proprietors in the village, brought the present suit for a declaration that they have a right of grazing cattle, cutting grass and wood for daily use from the area in dispute and for a permanent injunction restraining the Provincial Government from exercising the rights contemplated in the notification. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of that kind and this decision was affirmed by the Senior Sub-Judge in appeal. The plaintiffs who had brought the suit in a representative capacity have appealed to this Court and the question for this Court is whether the Courts below have come to a correct determination in point of law.