Compensation for improvements by unauthorised occupants survives absent a forfeiture order under land conservancy law.

Under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act, unauthorised occupation of Government land permitted eviction, but forfeiture arose only where a forfeiture order had been duly adjudged. In the absence of such an order, the occupant's claim to compensation for improvements could not be denied merely by relying on the Act. The Court accepted the general Indian rule that even a trespasser may remove improvements, and held that this right had been displaced by the Government's conduct on the facts. The decree allowing compensation for improvements was therefore maintained and the Government's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether persons in unauthorised possession of Government land were entitled to compensation or to the value of improvements made by them when no order of forfeiture had been passed under the Travancore Land Conservancy Act.

Analysis: Section 9 of the Travancore Land Conservancy Act empowered the Government to evict an unauthorised occupant and provided for forfeiture only where an order of forfeiture had been duly adjudged. In the absence of such an order, the rights of the parties had to be determined without invoking the Act to deny the occupant's claim to the improvements. The Court accepted that the general rule in India recognises a trespasser's right to remove improvements, and that this right had been taken away by the Government's action in the present case.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to retain the benefit of the decree for compensation for improvements, and the challenge by the Government failed.

---