DAULAT RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These six petitions raise a common question and can conveniently be disposed of by a single Judgment.

(2.) In CWP 112 of 1977, the petitioners had been recorded as tenants of the land, Khasra number 49, measuring 22 bighas 19 biswas situte in Mauza Naliaha Doem Jatol, Pargana Chhabrot, Tehsil and District Simla, under the Government. Previously this area was under the ownership of the erstwhile Pepsu State, and at that time also the petitioners had been recorded as tenants under the Pepsu Government, and now they are recorded as tenants under the Himachal PradeshGovernment, and the land is recorded as Ghasini. By virtute of the provisions of section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (Act No. 8 of 1974) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the rights, title and interest in the tenancy land of the landowner shall vest in the tenants free from all encumbrances. According to the petitioners since they had been recorded as the tenants, therefore, they had become the landowners of the land, khasra number 49, from the date of the promulgation of the rules framed under section 122 of the Act. These rules were promulgated on 4th October, 1975. Thereafter in pursuance of rule 28, mutation of the land in favour of the petitioners was effected and the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Simla, attested the same on 12th April, 1977, vide Annexure B.

(3.) After the petitioners had become the owners, they wanted to plant fruit trees on the land and for that purpose it was necessary to fell the trees and reclaim the land. In order to reclaim the land they wanted to sell the trees. The petitioners applied for the requisite permission for felling the trees after demarcating the area so that they may be able to export the timber for sale after obtaining requisite permission from the Forest Department. That application is, dated 20th April, 1977 addressed to the Chief Conservator of Forests, accompanied by a copy of the mutation, and a certificate from the Horticulture Inspector of the area duly counter -singed by the Block Development Officer that the said area was fit and suitable for raising an orchard, but the requisite permission had not been granted. The petitioners represented to the Forest Minister, but inspite of his assurance that the matter would be considered, permission had not so far been accorded. They again made a joint representation, copy of which is Annexure D, on 2nd August 1977, but no action was taken thereon also.