- (1.) THE petitioner company was granted a lease for 999 years in respect of certain plots of forest land including c. s. plots nos. 12 and 56, in mouza Kanksa J. L. No. 86, district Burdwan, by a Debatter estate known as "ukhara Estate Debattar". under a deed of lease dated February 20, 1954. The genuineness and validity of the document of lease was, the petitioner company says. upheld in a proceeding under section 5 (A) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act and the petitioner company was also recorded as "dakhalkar" in respect of the leasehold plots in the settlement records prepared under the said Act. The petitioner company further says that the leasehold plots were covered by a working plan prepared under the West Bengal Private Forest Act and the petitioner was working the forest in accordance with the plan. This is, however, not wholly admitted by the respondent no. 3, the Forest Range Officer, who states in his affidavit-in-opposition as hereinafter stated : - "5 The forest belonged to the Ukhara Estate Debattar from whom the petitioner alleges to have taken lease. The said Ukhara Estate Debattar did not submit any working plan for the aforesaid forest as required by the provisions of the West Bengal Private Forest Act, 1948, whereupon the then Regional Forest Officer, Burdwan district prepared a working plan under section 3 (3) of the said Act and it was approved by the Conservator of Forests (Southern circle), West Bengal, under section 4 (1) of the said Act. Thereafter copies of the approved plan together with maps were served upon the owner on or about January, 13, 1955 and January 24, 1955. 6. I may state here that the petitioner company did not make any endeavour to let the forest department know of the existence of any proprietary right of the company in regard to the forest. 7. I further state that the petitioner while alleging to be a lessee since February 1954, did not raise any objection or even send any information to the forest department even though the approved plan and map were served on the owners (Ukhara Estate Debottar)as late as January, 1955. "
(2.) THE allegations in the affidavit-in -opposition are denied in the affidavitin-reply and in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-reply it is stated as follows : - "with regard to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said affidavit-in-opposition I deny the allegations therein. I say that the allegations that the petitioner company did not make any endeavour to let the Forest Department know of the existence of the rights of the company with regard to the forests is incorrect and not true. Immediately after your petitioner took the lease intimation was given to the Range Officer, Ukhara, about the petitioner taking lease from Ukhara Estate Debuttar with the object of working the said forests according to approved working plans and also sought permission to fell trees. On 9th April 1954 by Memo. No. 2058 (4-67 the Divisional Forest Officer, Burdwan Division permitted your petitioner to fell trees till the 15th April. Your petitioner also sent annual reports of the working of the forests to the Regional Forest Officer, Burdwan. Even in 1955, your petitioner wanted a working plan to be approved with respect to certain c. s. plots which had been omitted through oversight. On or about 20 April, 1955, the Forest Range Officer sent to the petitioner an approved working plan. On the 3rd June, 1955, by Memo. No. 3516 (19)-17-3 the divisional Forest Officer, Burdwan Division, wrote to your petitioner to register the property mark (brand) of the timber. Your petitioner submitted annual returns in 1955, 1956 and 1957 to the Regional Forest Officer, Burdwan with reference to two approved working plans dated 28. 9. 6l and one dated 11. 4. 55. On a complaint having been made by the petitioner to the Divisional Forest Officer, Burdwan, about refugees unauthorisidely cutting and removing trees the Divisional forest Officer wrote to the Range Officer, Durgapur Range with copies to the District Authorities for taking suitable steps against the miscreants. A copy of the letter written by the Divisional Forest Officer to the Range officer, referred to above is an annexure to the affidavit-in-reply and I quote the relevant extract there from : - "i send herewith a copy of letter No. UFF/fd/6/56 dated 18. 6. 56. of the Ukhara Forests and Fisheries Private Ltd. which will speak for itself. Please take suitable steps to detect illicit felling and take necessary action against them. "
(3.) CONSIDERING the avernments made in the affidavit-in-reply and the materials therein disclosed, it is impossible for me to hold that the forest department was not even aware of the existence of the petitioner company working in the forest. Paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition by the Forest Range officer must, therefore, be treated as containing an exaggeration and I leave the disputed question at that, because it is not necessary for me to go further into the point. The petitioner company feels aggrieved by an order under section 10 (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, made by the respondent no. 1, Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer, a copy of which was served on the petitioner company on May 5, 1952. The material portion of the said order reads as follows: - "whereas by virtue of the Notification No. 12516-L. Ref. /6840 L. Ref. issued on the 16th August, 1954/ 10th April, 1956 by the Government of West Bengal under the provision of section 4 of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 the lands comprised in the: forest specified in the schedule below together with all rights to the trees therein or to the produce thereof and held by any intermediary or any other person have vested in the State of West Bengal free from all in cumbrances. Now, therefore, I do hereby require you under section 10 (2) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, to give up possession on the 15th day of Ashar (Bengali) month of the Bengali year, 1369 B. S. of the interests in your possession as specified in the schedule below to the officer authorised by me in this behalf. ";