2000 (8) TMI 1105 - SC - Indian Laws

Landholders entitled to compensation for forest produce on surrendered land; Supreme Court dismisses appeals

D. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Versus ADDL. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERS

The Supreme Court held that the forest produce standing on the surrendered land does not vest in the State along with the land, and landholders are ... - Issues Involved:1. When does the land surrendered by the landholder vest in the StateRs.2. Whether the forest produce standing on the land surrendered also vests in the State along with the landRs.3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the ground that they had been approaching for the last several years for permits to cut and remove the forest produce on the said land, but were prevented from doing so on account of in-action on the part of or wrong orders passed by the officers of the Forest DepartmentRs.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. When does the land surrendered by the landholder vest in the StateRs.The learned Single Judge held that vesting of the surplus land takes place on the date the Form No. IX notice is issued and served upon the person concerned. This conclusion was supported by the language of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling and Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, and the contents of Form IX. The surplus land vests in the Government free from all encumbrances from the date of the order to take possession, as stated in Form IX notice. This interpretation was derived from a harmonious construction of the provisions in Section 11 and Rule 8, aligning with the object and purpose of the Act.2. Whether the forest produce standing on the land surrendered also vests in the State along with the landRs.The learned Single Judge ruled that the forest growth on the surplus land vested in the State along with the land itself. This was based on the finding that no separate compensation or amount is payable for such forest growth. The judgment relied on a Division Bench decision of the High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 355-356 of 1982. However, the Supreme Court found that there is no provision in the Act or Rules for payment of compensation for trees (other than fruit-bearing trees) or any other forest produce on the vested land. Therefore, the claim for compensation for the trees or other forest produce standing on the surplus land surrendered does not arise under the provisions of the Act or the Rules.3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief on the ground that they had been approaching for the last several years for permits to cut and remove the forest produce on the said land, but were prevented from doing so on account of in-action on the part of or wrong orders passed by the officers of the Forest DepartmentRs.The learned Single Judge divided the writ petitioners into three categories and issued different directions based on the status of land surrender and possession. For the first category of petitioners, the surplus land had vested in the State in 1979, and therefore, no relief was granted. For the second category, the surplus land had not been surrendered, and no possession had been taken following the prescribed procedure, so no relief was granted. For the third category, the lands proposed to be surrendered had not yet vested in the State, and the authorities were directed to issue transit permits for the forest growth on the land. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that even before vesting of the property in the State Government, the holders of the land had no right to fell and remove the standing trees or other forest produce without a permit from the competent officer of the Forest department. Therefore, no direction could be justifiably issued for felling and/or removal of any forest produce from the forest area.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the learned Single Judge's decision, that forest produce did not vest in the Government and that the landholders are entitled to compensation, to be unsustainable. Consequently, the direction to the State Government to determine and pay compensation for the forest growth was also unsustainable. Civil Appeal No. 3013 of 1987 was allowed, and the judgment under challenge was set aside. Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of 1995 were dismissed. No order for costs was made.