# SBRI U. R. MA VJNKURVE v. THAKOR MADHA VSINGHJI GAMBHIRSINGH AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1965] 3 S.C.R. 177
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1965-02-24
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sbri-u-r-ma-vjnkurve-v-thakor-madha-vsinghji-gambhirsingh-and-others-3392
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A
B
SBRI U. R. MA VJNKURVE
v.
THAKOR MADHA VSINGHJI GAMBHIRSINGH AND
OTHERS
February 24, 1965
lii
[P. B.
GAJENDRAGIDKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH,
RAGHUBil
DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Bqmbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) ACI,
1953, ss. 3, 5 and 9-J agirdars becoming occupants of Forest Areai
0 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code after Abolition Act-Wheth""
their rights included right to trees under s. 40 of the Code.
The first eleven respondents were J agirdars in a former state
which was merged with the State of Bombay in June 1948. In August
1953, these respondents entered into an agreement with respondent
No. 12, whereby, the latter could cut and remove all species of trees
D
from forest lands in 39 villages over which the first eleven respon.-
dents claimed full proprietary rights.
On August, 1, 1954,. the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 came into force whereby all Jagirs in
the merged territories in Bombay State were abolished. Under s. 6
of',the Act, the Jagirdars became 'occupants' in the lands including
forest areas which were then in their possession.
On July 6, 1956 the State Government issued a notification under
1. 34(A) of the Indian Forest Act, declaring all uncultivated lands
in the 39 villages to be forests for the purposes of Ch. 5 of the Act.
Thereafter, h. March and July 1958, the Divisional Forest Officer
wrote to the respondents stating, inter alia, that all the rights of
the J agirdars having been abolished, the reserved species of trees
on the lands belonged to the Stat~ Government and
prohibiting
them from cutting and removing the trees. The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition, seeking a direction to the appellants to
canceL and to restrain from enforcing the orders contained in the
letters of the Divisional Forest Officer.
The High Court allowed the petition, mainly on the ground that
as the J agirdars became occupants within the meaning
of
the
G
Bombay Land Revenue Code of the forest lands under s. 5(1)(b) of
the Abolition Act, they, and not the State Government, were entitled to the trees standing on them. In the appeal to the Supreme Court
it was further contended on behalf of the respondents that as s. 9
of the Act vested some of the rights to trees in forest areas in the
State Government, by implicati.On, al,j, the remaining rights belonged to the J agirdars.
B
HELD: Under s. 5(1)(b) of the Abolition Act, the only rights conferred on the J agirdars were the occupancy rights of the Forest
lands; under s. 40 of the Bombay Revenue Code the rights of occupants did ·not include the right to cut and remove trees from the
forest lands except in the case of villages of which the original
survey and settlement has. been completed, whereupon the Government's rights to the trees, unless expressly or otherwise reserved,
are deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. In the presen,t
case the villages in question had admittedly not been surveyed and
178
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS \
(1965] 3 s.c.B.
settled and therefore the rights of the State Government to the trees A
could not be deemed to have been conceded to the respondents as
occupants. (184 E-185 E]
·
'Bys. 3 of the Abolition Act all Jagirs and all the rights of a Jagirdar were extinguished unless there was any express provision in
the Act saving any right. It could not be said ·that because s. 9 of
the Act reserved certain rights to trees of the State Government
and by implication the J agirdars had all the other rights, there was
B
an express provision saving the rights of the Jagirdars within the
meaning of s. 3. (185 F-Hl
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 281
of
1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 14, 1959 of the Bombay High Gourt in Special Civil ApC
plication No. 2146 of 1958.
S. G. Patwardhan and R. If. Dhebar, for the appellants.
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Ntfl'ain, for respondents no. l, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 12.
The Judg

## Text

A
B
SBRI U. R. MA VJNKURVE
v.
THAKOR MADHA VSINGHJI GAMBHIRSINGH AND
OTHERS
February 24, 1965
lii
[P. B.
GAJENDRAGIDKAR, C. J., M. HIDAYATULLAH,
RAGHUBil
DAYAL AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.]
Bqmbay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) ACI,
1953, ss. 3, 5 and 9-J agirdars becoming occupants of Forest Areai
0 under the Bombay Land Revenue Code after Abolition Act-Wheth""
their rights included right to trees under s. 40 of the Code.
The first eleven respondents were J agirdars in a former state
which was merged with the State of Bombay in June 1948. In August
1953, these respondents entered into an agreement with respondent
No. 12, whereby, the latter could cut and remove all species of trees
D
from forest lands in 39 villages over which the first eleven respon.-
dents claimed full proprietary rights.
On August, 1, 1954,. the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 came into force whereby all Jagirs in
the merged territories in Bombay State were abolished. Under s. 6
of',the Act, the Jagirdars became 'occupants' in the lands including
forest areas which were then in their possession.
On July 6, 1956 the State Government issued a notification under
1. 34(A) of the Indian Forest Act, declaring all uncultivated lands
in the 39 villages to be forests for the purposes of Ch. 5 of the Act.
Thereafter, h. March and July 1958, the Divisional Forest Officer
wrote to the respondents stating, inter alia, that all the rights of
the J agirdars having been abolished, the reserved species of trees
on the lands belonged to the Stat~ Government and
prohibiting
them from cutting and removing the trees. The respondents thereupon filed a writ petition, seeking a direction to the appellants to
canceL and to restrain from enforcing the orders contained in the
letters of the Divisional Forest Officer.
The High Court allowed the petition, mainly on the ground that
as the J agirdars became occupants within the meaning
of
the
G
Bombay Land Revenue Code of the forest lands under s. 5(1)(b) of
the Abolition Act, they, and not the State Government, were entitled to the trees standing on them. In the appeal to the Supreme Court
it was further contended on behalf of the respondents that as s. 9
of the Act vested some of the rights to trees in forest areas in the
State Government, by implicati.On, al,j, the remaining rights belonged to the J agirdars.
B
HELD: Under s. 5(1)(b) of the Abolition Act, the only rights conferred on the J agirdars were the occupancy rights of the Forest
lands; under s. 40 of the Bombay Revenue Code the rights of occupants did ·not include the right to cut and remove trees from the
forest lands except in the case of villages of which the original
survey and settlement has. been completed, whereupon the Government's rights to the trees, unless expressly or otherwise reserved,
are deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. In the presen,t
case the villages in question had admittedly not been surveyed and
178
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS \
(1965] 3 s.c.B.
settled and therefore the rights of the State Government to the trees A
could not be deemed to have been conceded to the respondents as
occupants. (184 E-185 E]
·
'Bys. 3 of the Abolition Act all Jagirs and all the rights of a Jagirdar were extinguished unless there was any express provision in
the Act saving any right. It could not be said ·that because s. 9 of
the Act reserved certain rights to trees of the State Government
and by implication the J agirdars had all the other rights, there was
B
an express provision saving the rights of the Jagirdars within the
meaning of s. 3. (185 F-Hl
OVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 281
of
1962.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
January 14, 1959 of the Bombay High Gourt in Special Civil ApC
plication No. 2146 of 1958.
S. G. Patwardhan and R. If. Dhebar, for the appellants.
S. T. Desai, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder
Ntfl'ain, for respondents no. l, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 12.
The Judgment of the Court was deliverecr by
D
Ramaswami, J. Respondents nos. l to 11 were the Jagirdars of
Waghach State in former Sankeda Mewar in Reva Kantha Agency
which now forms part of the State of Gujarat. They claimed that
they were the full owners of all the land including forest areas in
the said State and exercised full revenue power during their reB
gime. There were 39 villages in Waghach State in all of which
there were forests. Except for the lands which were cultivated,
all the lands in the said villages were forest lands. Respondents
nos. l to 11 further claimed that they had full proprietary rights
over the forest lands and enjoyed the produce as full owners
thereof. By the agreement of merger dated June l, 1948 the State •
of Waghach was merged with the State of Bombay with effect
from June 10, 1948. On August 19, 1953, respondents l to 11 entered into an agreement with respondent no. 12 whereby respondent no. 12 became entitled to cut and remove all species of trees
from the forest lands in the 39 villages for a period of ten years.
On August l, 1954, the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas a
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 (Act XXXIX of 1954) came into
force. This Act was passed with the object of abolishing jagirs in
the merged territories and merged areas in the State of Bombay
and providing for matters 'f>nsequential and incidental thereto.
The jagirs were classified, under the Act, into two categories,
namely, (!) Proprietary jagirs and (2) Non-proprietary jilgirs. It B
i3 the undisputed position in the present case that the jagirs fell
in the category of proprietary jagirs. Under s. 5 of the Jagirs
Abolition Acit the Jagirdars became occupants in the lands including forest areas which were in their possession before coming
into force of the Act. On July 6, 1956 the State Goyernment
issued a notification under s. 34(A) of the Indian Forest Act. d~
laring all uncultivated lands in_ the said 39 villages to be forests for
MAVINKURVE ~ • .MADliAVSINGHJI (Ramaswami, J.)
17Y
A
the purposes of Ch. S of the Act On March 19, 1953 the Divisional Forest Officer wrote a letter to the respondents wherein he
stated that all the rights of the jagirdars had been abolished by
the Jagirs Abolition Act and that the reserved
species of trees
standing on the lands belonged to the State Government. He,
therefore, asked the respondents to refrain from cutting teak and
B
Pancharao trees standing in the forest lands. On July 11, 1958.
the Divisional Forest Officer wrote another letter to the respondents in which he stated that the reserved species of trees-teak,
blackwood and sandalwood-vested in the State Government and.
therefore, prohibited the respondents from cutting and removin_g
the material from those trees. He also warned the respondents that
11
if they cut and removed the material of such trees they will be
liable to prosecution. On the same date he wrote another Jetter to
the respondents and informed them that the material obtained by
cutting teak and blackwood trees which was lying in the foresl
lands, had been advertised for sale. The respondents
thereafter
filed a Special Civil Application no. 2146
of 1958 in the High
I>
Court of Judicature at Bombay against the applicants for the grant
of a writ in the nature of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution directing them to cancel the orders contained in the letters
of the Divisional Forest Officer dated March 19, 1958 and July 11,
1958 and to restrain the appellants from enforcing the said orders.
The High Court, by its judgment dated Jam1ary 14, 1959, allowed
E
the application of the respondents holding that after coming into
force of the Jagirs Abolition Act the rights of the jagirdars in the
forest lands and the trees were extinguished but at the same time
jagirdars became occupants of the forest lands under s. 5(1)(b) of
the said Act and they accordingly became entitled to the trees
standing on the forest lands. The High Court held that all the
:r trees standing on the forest lands belonged to the respondents l
to 11 and the same did not belong to the State Government and
consequently the State Government was not entitled to sell the
material obtained by cutting the trees. Accordingly the High
Court issued an injunction restraining the appellants from prevent·
ing the respondents from cutting any species of trees standing in
Ci
the forest lands in the villages in question and from removing and
disposing of the produce thereof. The High Court further held that
this order would be without prejudice to the right of the Stato
Government, if they had any, to reserve any class of trees under
s. 40 of the Land Revenue Code or under any other Jaw for the
H
time being in force, or to impose such restrictions as it may be lawful for them to do, under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act
and the Rules made thereunder.
The present appeal is brought by special leave on behalf of
the State of Gujarat and the other appellants against the order of
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the Special Civil Application no. 2146 of 1958.
'
180
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1965] 3 s.c.li.
The question presented for determination in
this
case is
A'
whether the trees standing' in the forest lands of the 39 villages in
question belong to the jagirdars-respondents 1 to 11 or to the
State Government and whether the respondents have a right to cut
and remove the trees including the reserved species of trees from
the forest lands of these villages.
Section 3 of the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas
(Jagirs Abolition) Act, I 953 (hereinafter to be called the Jagirs
Abolition Act) states:
ll
"3, Notwithstanding anything
conta;ned in any usage,
grant, sanad, order, agreement or any law for the
Cl
time being in force, on and from the appointed date,-
(i) all jagirs shall be deemed to have been abolished;
(ii) save as expre~sly provided by or under the provisions of this Act, the right of a jagirdar to recover
rent or assessment of land or to levy or recover D
any kind of tax, cess, fe~. charge or any hak, and
the right of reversion lapse, if any, vested in a
jagir<lar, and all other rights of a jagirdar or of any
person legally subsisting on the said date, in respect of a village as incidents of jagir shall be
deemed to have been extinguished."
ll
Under s. 4 all jagir villages are made liable to the payment of
land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Code and
the rules made thereunder, and the provisions of the Code and
the rules relating to unalienated lands are made applicable to such
villages. Section 5 (!) (b) provides a~ follows:
1
"5. (i) In a propnefary jagir village,-
.................. ··················· ·················· ············
(b) in the case ~f land other than Gharkhed land,
which is in the actual possession of the jagirdar or
in the possession of person other than a permaG
nent holder holding through or from the jagirdar, such jagirdar,
shall be primarily liable to the State Government for the payment of land revenue, due in resH
pect of such land and shall be entitled to all the
rights and shall be liable to all the obligations in
respect of such land as an occupant under the
Code or any other law for the
time being in
force:
'''''''''''''' oooooooooooooo••o••••••••.•••••••••o•oooooooooouooooo••••••••
MAVINKURVE '!I. MADHAVSINGHJI (Ram,,swami, J.)
181
A
Section 8 of the Jagirs Abolition Act states:
"8. All public roads, lanes and paths, the bridges, ditches,
dikes and fences, on or beside the same, the bed of
the sea and of harbours, creeks below high water mark,
and of rivers, streams, nalas, lakes, wells and tanks and
all canals and water courses, and all standing and fiowB
ing water, all unbuilt village site lands, all waste lands
and all uncultivated lands
(excluding lands used for
building or oth,er non-agricultural purposes) which are
situate within the limits of any jagir village, shall, except
in so far as any rights of any person other than the
jag;rdar may be established in or over the same and exC
cept as may otherwise be provided by any law for the
time being in force, vest in and shall be deemed to be,
with all rights in or over the same or appertaining
thereto, the property of the State Government and all
rights held by a jagirdar in such property shall be deemed to have been extinguished and it shall be lawful for
D
the Collector, subject to the general or special orders of
the State Government, to dispose them of as he deems
fit, subject always to the rights of way and other rights
of the public or of individuals legally subsisting.
E
r
G
H
"
Section 9 reads:
"9. The rights to trees specially reserved under the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, or any other law for the time being
in for~e. except those the ownership of which has been
transferred by the State Government under any contract, grant or law for the time being in force, shall
vest in the State Government and nothing in this Act
shall in any way affect the right of the State Government to apply the.provisions of the Indian Forest Act,
1927, as in force in the pre-Reorganisation State of
Bombay, excluding the transferred territories to forests
in a Jagir Village."
·················· ·················· ................. , ........... .
Section 10 provides as follows :
"10. Noth;ng in this Act or any other law for the time
being in force, shall be deemed to affect the rights of
any jagirdar subsisting on the appointed date to mines
or mineral products in a jagir village granted or rocngnised under any contract, grant or law for the time
being in force or by custom or usage."
Section 11 provides for compensation to
Jagirdars in the
manner provided therein.
Section 2(2) of the Jagirs Abolition Act states that any word
or expression which is defined in the Code and not defined in the
Act shall be deemed to have the meaning given to· it in the Code.
182
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
(1965] 3 s.c.R.
Section 2(1)(ii) of the J agirs Abolition Act defines the 'Code' to A
mean 'the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879'.
Section 3(16) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code defines
"Occupant" as a holder in actual possession of unalienated land,
other than a tenant: provided that where the holder in actual possession is a tenant, the landlord or superior landlord, as the case
may be, shall be deemed to be occupant.. Section 3(17) defines B
"Occupancy" to mean a portion of land held by an occupant.
Under s. 3(19) of the Code "Occupation" means possession. Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code provides as follows:
"40. In villages, or portions of villages, of which the original survey settlement has been completed before the
passing of this Act, the right of the Government to all 0
trees in unalienated land, except trees reserved by the
Government or by any survey officer, whether by ex·
press order made at, or about the time of such settlement, or under any rule, or 'general order in force at
the time of such settlement, or by notification made
and published at, or at any time cafter, such settlement, D
shall be deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. But in the case of settlement completed before the
passing of Bombay Act l of 1865 this provision shall
not apply to teak, black-wood or sandal-wood trees.
The right c;if the Government to such trees shall not be E
deemed to have been conceded, except by clear and
express words to that effect.
•
"In the case of villages or portions of villages of which the
original survey settlement shall be completed after the passing of
this Act, the right of the Government to all trees in unalienated
land shall be deemed to be conceded to the occupant of such land F
j:lltcept in so far as any such rights may be reserved by the Government, or by any survey officer on behalf of the Government,
either expressly at or about the time of such settlement, or generally by notification made and published at any time previous to
the completion of the survey settlement of the district in which
such village or portion of a viJlige is situate.
G
"When permission to occupy land has been, o~ shall hereafter
be granted after the completion of the survey settlement of the
village or portion of a village in which such land is situate, the
said permission shall be deemed to include the concession of the
right of the Government to all trees growing on that land which B
may not have been, or which shall not hereafter be, expressly
reserved at the time of granting such perm;ssion, or which may
not have been reserved, under any of the foregoing provisions of
this section, at or about the time of the original survey settlement
of the said village or portion of a village.
"Explanation.-In the s.econd paragr~ph of th.is section,
~e
expression "In the case of villages or portions of villages of wh.K:b
MAVL~UBVE v. MADHAVSINGHJI (Ramaswami, J.)
183
A the original survey settlement shall be completed after the passing
of this Act" shall include cases where the work of the original
survey settlement {eferred to therein was undertaken before the
passing of this Act as well as cases where the work of an original
survey settlement' may he undertaken at any time after the passing
of this Act."
B
0
D
B
r
•
II
Section 41 states:
"41. The right to all trees specially reserved under the provision of the lasf preceding section, and to all trees,
brushwood, jungle, or other natural product growing
on land set apart for forest reserves under section 32
of Bombay Act I of 1865 or section 38 of this Act,
and to all trees, brushwood, jungle or other natural product, wherever growing, except in so far as the same
may be the property of individuals or of aggregates of
individuals capable of holding property, vests in the
State Government and such trees, brushwood, jungle
or other natural product shall be preserved or disposed
of in such manner as the State Government may from
time to time direct."
Section 65 states :
"65. An occupant of land assessed or held for the purpose
of agriculture is entitled by himself, his servants,
tenant, agents, or other legal representatives, to erect
farm-buildings, construct wells or tanks, or make any
other improvements thereon for the better cultivation
of the land, or its more convenient use for the purpose
aforesaid.
But, if any occupant wishes to use his holding or any
part thereof for any other purpose the Collector's per·
mission shall. in the first place be applied for by the
occupant.
The Collector, on receipt of such application,
(a) shall send to the applicant a written acknowledgment of its receipt, and
(b) may, after due inquiry, either grant or refuse permission applied for;
When any such land is thus permitted to be used for
purpose unconnected with agriculture it shall be lawful for
Collector, subject to the general order of the State Govern·
ment to require the payment of a fine in addition to any
new assessment which may be leviable under the provisions
of section 48."
184
Ul'REME
COURT
REPOR'rS
[1965] 3 s.c.R.
Section 68 states that the occupant's rights are cond;tional, and is
A
to the following effect:
"68. An occupant is entitled to the use and occupation of
his land for the period, if any, to which his tenure is
limited, or if the period is unlimited, or a survey settlement has been extended to the land, in perpetuity conditionally on the payment of the amounts due on ac, B
count of the land revenue for the same, according to
the provisions of this Act, or of any rules made under
this Act, or of any other law, for the time being in
force, and on the fulfilment of any other terms or conditions lawfully annexed to his tenure;
"
.......................................... ; .......... .
c
The High Court expressed the view that under s. 3 of the
Jagirs Abolition Act the rights of the jagirdars in the forest lands
and the trees which grew upon them were extingu;shed. The High
Court further held that with the coming into force of the Jagirs D
Abolition Act jagirdars became the occupants in the forest
lands under s. 5(l)(b) of that Act and the respondents 1 to 11 become, therefore, entitled to the trees standing on the forest lands.
In our opinion, the view expressed by the H;gh Court is erroneous
and must be reversed. It is manifest that under s. 3 of the Jagirs
Abolition Act all jagirs were abolished and all the rights of the E
jagirdars were extinguished, save those rights wh;ch are expressly
provided by other provisions of the Act itself. It is also manifest
that under s. 5(l)(b) of the Act the only rights conferred on the
jagirdars are the rights of occupancy of the forest lands. In our
opinion, the rights of the occupants under the Bombay Land Revenue Code do not include the right to cut and remove the trees r
from the forest lands. The reason is that the 36 villages in dispute
have not been surveyed or settled and until there is completion of
the survey and settlement there is no question of concession on
the part of the State Government of the right to the trees in
favour of the occupants. Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue
Code provides that in the case of villages of which the original G
survey settlement has been completed before the passing of the
Act, the right of the Government to all trees in unalienated land,
except trees reserved by the Government or by any survey officer,
whether by express order made at, or about the time of such settlement, or under any rule, or general order in force at the time
of such settlement, or by not;fication. made and published at, or H
at any time after, such settlement, shall be deemed to have been
conceded to the occupant. The second para of s. 40 deals with
concession of Government rights to trees in case of settlements
completed after the passing of the Act. The second para states that
in the case of villages or portions of villages of which the original
survey settlement shall be completed after the passing of the Act,
the right of the Government to all trees in unalienated land shall
MAVINKl'RVE v. MADHAVSINGHJI (Ramaswami, J.)
185
A
be deemed to be conceded to the occupant of such land except in
so far as any such rights may be reserved by the Government, or
by any survey officer on behalf of the Government, either expressly at or about the time of such settlement, or generally by notification made and published at any -time previous to the completion
of the survey settlement. The third paragraph of s. 40 relates to the
B concession of Government rights to trees in case of land taken up
after completion of settlement. The section states that when permission to occupy land has been granted after the completion of the
survey settlement of the village, the said permission shall be deemed
to include the concession of the right of the Government to all
trees growing on that land which may not have been, or which
C shall not hereafter be, expressly reserved at the time of granting
''-!Ch permission. In the present case, the 36 villages in question
have admittedly not been surveyed and settled and the necessary
conclusion to be drawn is that the rights of the State Government
(') tre~s cannot be deemed to be conceded to the occupants of the
land. The assumption is implicit in s. 40 of the Bombay Land
D Revenue Code that all the trees standing and growing on the lands
with the occupants belong ta the State Government and not to the
o~cup:~nts and until there is a survey and settle;nent of the village
the question of concession on the part of the State Government of
rights to the trees does not arise. In other words, until there is survey and settlement of the land there is no implic~tion in favour of
E respc"11ents I ta 11 that they had concession of the rights of the
Go-;crnmcnt to the trees standing on the forest lands.
On behalf of the respondents Mr. S.T. Desai referred to s. 9
of the Jagirs Abolition Act and stressed the argument that the
right of trees ment'oned in that section alone vested in the State
F
Government and there was no other reservation in the Act or any
other law, in favour of the State Government. It was contended
that by implication it must be held that the jagirdars had rights
to the trees in the forest areas apart from those mentioned in s. 9
of the Act. We do not accept th 's argument as correct. Section 3
of the Act provide1 for abolition of jagirs and under that section
G all jagirs shall be deemed to have been abolished on and from the
appointed date i.e .. August !. 1954 and.all rights of a Jagirdar, in
respect of a jagir v'llage as incidents of jagir, shall be deemed to
have been extin§!uished by virtue of the section unless there is express provision in the Act saving such right. In our opinion, s. 9
of the Ja~'rs Abolition Act is not an express provision saving the
H
right of the jagirdars with regard to the trees and the argument of
Mr. Desai must be rejected on this point. Our view is supported
by the language of s. 10 of the Jagirs Abolition Act which expressly saves the right of the jag'rdar to mines or mineral products
in a jagir village subsisting on the appointed day. There is no provision in th~ Jagirs Abolit'on Act corresponding to s. 10 with regard to the saving of the right to the trees in favour of the jagirdars. We are accordingly of the opinion that after coming into
186
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[1966] 3 8.0 . .ll.
force of the Jagirs Abolition Act respondents 1 to 11 becam\l ooA
cupants in respect of the forest lands in the 36 villages and the
only rights which they have are those of occupants under the pr<>-
visions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and such rights do
not include the right to cut and remove the trees from the forest
Iaiids of the villages in question.
In our opinion, the High Court was in error in holding that B
the respondents were entitled to cut and remove all species of trees
standing in the forest lands of the 36 villages in question. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court
dated January 14, 1959 in Special Civil .\pplication no. 2146 'of
1958 and order that the Special Civil Application should be dis- c
missed. The appellants are entitled to costs both in this Court and
in the High Court.
Appeal allowed.