Shah, J. - (1.) Kumar Shri Ranjit Singhji Bhavan Singhji-hereinafter called the respondent' - was the holder of a Jagir of four villages - Saloz, Vaurkhan, Kambalad and Thambla in Taluka, Jambegam District Baroda. These villages were granted by a Sanad dated August 18, 1885, to the father of the respondent by the then Ruler of Chhota Udaipur. By the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act 39 of 1954 with effect from August 1, 1954, the Jagir of the respondent stood abolished. Under the provisions of the Act the respondent became entitled to compensation provided under the Act. The respondent preferred a claim for compensation under the Act. The Jagir Abolition officer held that no compensation was payable in respect of teak trees, because in the Chhota Udaipur State teak trees were reserved trees, and no convincing evidence had been produced by the Jagirdar that he enjoyed any right to reserved trees. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the Jagir Abolition Officer. The Tribunal held that the Sanad granted to the respondent's father related merely to the right of usufruct of the villages and the grantee was expressly prohibited from mortgaging, selling or disposing of the same in any manner. That prohibition in the view of the Tribunal applied to teak trees as well.
(2.) The respondent moved a petition in the High Court of Gujarat for a writ quashing the order of the Tribunal. The High Court held that there was evidence on the record that the State of Chhota Udaipur had treated and dealt with the forest as absolute property of the grantee, and it was not proved that the teak trees were reserved trees. The High Court accordingly held that the respondent was entitled to receive compensation in respect of the teak trees. With special leave,the State of Gujarat has appealed to this Court.
(3.) The High Court found that the respondent was an absolute grantee of the villages under the Sanad dated August 18, 1885, and the restriction on the power of alienation did not built the title of the respondent in the lands and in things attached thereto. The respondent was, therefore, the owner of the teak trees. There was also no evidence before the High Court that the teak trees were declared reserved forests either in the territory of the former State Chhota Udaipur or specifically within the four Jagir villages.;