Venkataramiah, J. - (1.) Civil Appeals Nos. 2069 of 1972 and 2070 of 1972 by special leave are filed against the common Judgment dated 31-7-1972 in Civil Rules Nos. 477 of 1968 and 483 of 1968 respectively on the file of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland. Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura. Since common questions of law arise for consideration in these two cases, they are disposed of by his common judgment.
(2.) The respondents in these two appeals are forest contractors and they were operating in two forests called Lum Langkaraw and Lumkhliem Moriap alleged to be belonging to Joseph and Kailla Rymbai. These forests are situated within the jurisdiction of the District Council of the Jowai Autonomous District, Jowai (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Council') - Appellant No. 1 herein. On April 20, 1968 the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the District Council issued a notification levying royalty in exercise of its power under the United Khasi and Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Act, 1958 (Act 1 of 1959) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on red pine, white pine and log pine timber grown in the private forests situated within the jurisdiction of the District Council at the rates specified therein. The Notification reads thus: "No. JAD/FOR/68/26 Dated, Jowai. April 20, 1968. In exercise of the power conferred under S. 8 of the U.K. and J. Hills Autonomous District (Management and Control of Forests) Act, 1958 as adopted under the Jowai Autonomous District (Administration) Act, 1967, the Executive Committee of the Jowai Autonomous District Council is pleased to fix a flat Rate of Royalty for both red pine and white pine @ 80 p. per cubic foot for all the squared log pine timber irrespective of the girth classes other than the pine timber that comes from private forests; for the squared log pine timber from the private forests that is to go outside the Jowai Autonomous District for trade purpose, the rate of Royalty is fixed at half of the above scheduled rate i.e. Re. 40 p. per cft. The above rates will take immediate effect and modify R. 2 of the U.K. and J. Hills Autonomous Distt. (Management and Control of Forests Rates of Royalty) Rules, 1959 as far as its application to white pines and red pines is concerned. This supersedes all orders on the subject. Sd/- D. Passah Secretary, Executive Committee District Council Jowai Autonomous District Jowai" As the respondents became liable to pay the royalty, as specified in the Notification, they instituted the writ petitions in the High Court, out of which these appeals arise, questioning the competence of the District Council and its Executive Committee and officers to levy the royalty in accordance with the Notification on the timber that came from private forests within its jurisdiction; The respondents, among other pleas contended that the royalty, in question, which was in the nature of tax was not leviable by the District Council since it had no authority under the Constitution and the laws made thereunder to impose the said levy. On behalf of the District Council it was contended that since the private forests were also under the management and control of the District Council under the provisions of the law in force in that area, to which adetailed reference would be made hereafter, it was open to it to levy the royalty even though it may be in the nature of a tax. It was next contended on behalf of the Distric Council that even though a tax cannot be levied on the trees grown in private forests, since the District Council had the competence to levy tax on lands and buildings and the trees in the private forests were grown on the land the tax in question could be treated as tax on land which it was, therefore, entitled to levy. It was next contended that even if it could not levy a tax, such amount can be realised by way of fee in order to meet the expesnes incurred by the District Council in connection with the management and control of the private forests. Lastly it was contended that the forests in question were not private forests and so the respondents could not maintain the petition at all. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the High Court found that the forests in question were private forests and further held that the District Council had no constitutional authority to impose either royalty or tax or fee on private forests and that the Notification dated 20th April, 1968 issued under section 8 of the Act was ultra vires and not sanctioned by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. As a consequence of the above finding, the High Court issued a writ of mandamus to the appellants (respondents in the writ petitions) restraining them from realising royalty from the respondents in respect of timber extracted by them from the two forests, referred to above.
(3.) Aggrieved by the judgments/orders passed by the High Court in the said petitions, the District Council and others who were respondents in the writ petitions, have preferred these appeals to this Court by special leave.;