Occupant rights after jagir abolition do not automatically include forest trees; reserved trees remain with the State.

After abolition of jagirs under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, jagirdars acquired only such rights as were expressly saved, and section 5(1)(b) gave them occupant rights in land alone. Those rights, read with the Bombay Land Revenue Code, did not automatically include ownership or removal rights over trees standing on forest lands. Section 40 of the Code showed that, until survey settlement, Government rights in trees were not deemed conceded to the occupant, and no implied grant could arise where the villages were unsurveyed and unsettled. Reserved trees were separately vested in the State under section 9, and section 10 confirmed that any preserved pre-existing rights had to be expressly stated.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after the abolition of jagirs under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953, the jagirdars became entitled as occupants to cut and remove trees standing on forest lands in the jagir villages, including reserved species of trees.

Analysis: Under section 3 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, all jagirs stood abolished and all rights of the jagirdar as incidents of the jagir were extinguished except to the extent expressly saved by the Act. Section 5(1)(b) conferred only the rights of an occupant in respect of the land, and those rights had to be ascertained with reference to the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Court held that the rights of an occupant under the Code do not include an automatic right to the trees standing on forest lands. Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 proceeds on the basis that, until survey settlement is completed, the Government's rights to trees are not deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. Since the villages in question had not been surveyed or settled, no concession of tree rights in favour of the respondents could be implied. Section 9 of the Jagirs Abolition Act, which specifically vests reserved trees in the State Government, did not operate as a saving clause in favour of the jagirdars, and section 10 showed that where the Legislature intended to preserve a jagirdar's pre-existing rights it did so expressly.

Conclusion: The respondents were not entitled to cut or remove the trees from the forest lands, and the right to the trees remained with the State Government.

---