- (1.) This appeal by the State of Bihar challenges the correctness of an order made by the High Court at Patna in an application by the respondent under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The respondent was inducted as a tenant on a tract of land measuring 245.69 acres in village Singpur by the then proprietor in November, 1945, and continued to remain in possession after the Zemindari interest of the proprietor became vested in the State of Bihar in consequence of a notification under the Bihar Land Reforms Act (Bihar Act XXX of 1952) on the 20th December 1952. In 1945 this area was forest land. On September 15, 1946, a notification was published under S. 14 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, 1946 declaring the Government's intention of constituting the forest a private protected forest. By the same notification the Governor further ordered that until the publication of a notification under S. 30 of the Act all the rights to cut, collect and remove trees or any class of trees in or from the forest shall cease to exist subject to conditions and specifications specified in the Second Schedule. The result of this notification was that immediately on its publication in the Government Gazette the respondent's right to cut, collect and remove trees ceased so long as this forest continued to be a private forest. On the 6th April, 1948, a notification under the proviso to S. 30 of the Bihar Private Forest Act, was published. After the forest land became vested in the State on the 30th December, 1952, there was a notification on January 22, 1953, which both parties agree, was in substance under the proviso to S. 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is the common case of both the parties that in consequence of this notification the forests in Singpur Village became a protected forest. On May 29, 1953, a further notification under S. 30 of the Indian Forest Act was made prohibiting the breaking up or clearing the land of this and certain other "protected forests" for cultivation. As local employees of the Forest Department acting under the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya, started interfering with the agricultural operations carried on on behalf of the petitioner apparently on the strength of this notification of May 29, 1953, the respondent sought the permission of the Collector of Gaya to start reclamation and cultivation of lands. On April 22, 1954 the Collector of Gaya gave the petitioner permission "to go ahead with the work of reclamation and cultivation in this area." The Forest Officer however disregarded the Collector's orders and made the petitioner to stop reclamation. On being approached by the appellant the Collector called upon the Forest Officer to furnish an explanation as to why he had flouted deliberately the Collector's orders. Ultimately, the Bihar Government sent a telegram to the Collector, Gaya, on June 10, 1954 desiring that the order issued by the Collector on April 22, permitting the respondent "to go ahead with the reclamation should be withdrawn pending the decision of the Government in the matter". The Collector forwarded a copy of this telegram to the respondent for information and necessary action, on June 11, 1954.
(2.) It does not appear that any further order has been made by the Government in the matter. On August 2, 1954 the respondent made his application to the High Court of Judicature at Patna praying that an appropriate writ be issued for cancellation by the Government of Bihar of the directions given on June 10, 1954 to the Collector and for restraining the Government of Bihar and the Forest Officer from interfering with the petitioner's possession over this land in village Singpur.
(3.) The petitioner's case was that the forest having become a protected forest under Ch. IV of the Indian Forest Act the Collector was the proper and competent authority to give permission to clear or break up for cultivation, land in this forest under R. 8 of the rules made by the Government of Bihar in exercise of the power conferred by S. 32 of the Indian Forest Act., 1927 and that neither the Forest Officer nor the Government of Bihar itself could in law interfere with what he was doing on the strength of that permission.;