text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
112 of 1100 M.E. were stayed, as such it cannot be said that these improvements could have been effected in good faith RLC |
With respect to the allegation that an order of forfeiture was not served on the appellant under s. 9 of the .Act, the Court observed that though the State had in its written statement contended that such an order had been passed, no order was produced in evidence and consequently it was conceded by the Government Plea... |
In the circumstances the question that had to be considered was whether without an order of forfeiture being passed, the respondent could forfeit the improvements RLC |
On this issue it was held that no notice, of forfeiture of trees RLC |
need be given under s. 9 of the Act and, therefore no compensation or damages were payable in respect thereof RLC |
The High Court accepted the finding of the Trial Court on issue FAC |
It observed that the evidence in the case indicated that the possession of the father of the appellant must have commenced close to the year 1100 M.E. and consequently the claim of the appellant that lie was in possession from 1030 M.E. cannot be true RLC |
It then said: "If the possession commenced only about the year 1100, it certainly cannot be under any bona fide claim of title for even on RLC |
12-6-1094, the petitioner knew that the land was Government land and had then applied for assignment of the land RLC |
Accordingly the High Court found that at no time the occupation of the land by the appellant was under a bona fide claim of title RLC |
The contention of the appellant that the trees which are the subject-matter of the appeal should have been forfeited by an order passed under s. 9 of the Act and in the absence of such FAC |
an order his right to the value of those trees had to be adjudged and paid FAC |
to him was also negatived, as the Court held that the words "any crop or other product raised on the land" occurring in s. 9 of the Act would not include trees FAC |
In its view these words take in what is familiarly known in law as 'emblements' which according to Black's FAC |
Law Dictionary mean "Such products of the soil as are annually planted, served and saved by manual labour, as cereals, vegetables, Grass maturing for harvest or harvested, etc., but not grass on lands used for pasturage FAC |
In this view it held that compensation for trees which are to be dealt with under the general law cannot be decreed in favour of a mere trespasser who had no rights therein FAC |
It was also of the view that the claim for compensation for trees which has to be dealt with under the general law under which a mere trespasser would have no rights to the payment of compensation nor could be FAC |
Appellant be allowed to remove them after his dispossession FAC |
Another reason for disallowing the compensation for trees given by the High Court was that the position of a trespasser-whether he be a mere trespasser or a trespasser under a bona fide claim of title--cannot be better than that of a tenant, and that if this is correct, then the appeal has to be dismissed on the short ... |
The learned advocate for the appellant has reiterated the submissions made before the Trial Court and the High Court and contends that there is no order forfeiting the improvements as required under s. 9 of the Act, and if s. 9 does not apply and there is no right of forfeiture as contemplated under s. 9, then the appe... |
Apart from this contention, towards the end of his argument, the learned advocate for the appellant sought to make out a fresh case, namely, that as the appellant was not served with a notice to quit as required under s. 9 of the Act but was forcibly evicted without giving him an opportunity of cutting and taking away ... |
from the lands from which he was evicted, he would be entitled to claim compensation for the improvements made by him ARG |
It may be stated that the finding that the possession of the appellant ,commenced after his application for registration was rejected in 1919, and the improvements, if any must have been effected only thereafter with full knowledge that the title to the lands was in dispute between the Illom and the Government, is unas... |
We have earlier adverted to Ext Ratio |
A and also to the fact that after the application for registration was ,rejected the appellant tried to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by the Illom against the State which application was also rejected and so the claim that his possession was bona fide or that he was a bona fide .trespasser Ratio |
has no validity Ratio |
This finding is fortified by s. 5 of the Act which provides that from and after the commencement of the Act it shall not be lawful for any person to occupy land which is the property of the Government whether Poramboke or not without the permission from the Government or such officer of the Government as may be ,empowe... |
In view of this specific provision the contravention of which is punishable under s. 6 thereof, his conduct in applying for registration and for getting himself impleaded in the suit of the Illom against the Government, would show that he knew that the land was Government land or land in which the Government had a clai... |
In these circumstances he cannot be said to be a bona fide trespasser particularly after he had applied to the Government for obtaining .a Ratio |
registration in his name on the basis that it was Government land Ratio |
It is however urged before us that the High Court was in error in thinking that the appellant did not occupy the lands as a trespasser with a bona fide claim of title because it was his case that he trespassed upon the land with a bona fide intention to improve the land, and as such he can still be considered as a bona... |
Before dealing with this aspect,, we will first consider the question whether trees are included within the meaning of s. 9, so as to entitle the appellant to a notice of forfeiture there under STA |
Section 9 of the Act is in the following terms : "Any person unauthorised occupying any land for which he is liable to pay a fine under section 6 and an assessment or prohibitory assessment under section 7, may be summarily evicted by the Division Peishkar, and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liab... |
Forfeiture under this section shall be disposed of as the Division Peishkar may direct STA |
An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely: By serving a notice on a person reported to be in occupation or his agent, requir ing him, within such time as the Division Peishkar may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and if such notice is not obeyed, by... |
This section provides for two notices to be given one notice is to be given to the person who is in unauthorised occupation of Government land to vacate the land within a reasonable time and the other notice is to forfeit any crop or other product raised on the land or to remove any building or other structure erected ... |
It was conceded before the Trial Court and no attempt was made to establish anything to the contrary before the High Court that no notice of forfeiture as required under s. 9 was given to the appellant Ratio |
In these circumstances, the question that would arise for determination is whether the trees come within the description of "other product raised on the land Ratio |
It is stated before us that at the time when the appellant was evicted the Transfer of Property Act was not in force Ratio |
But this is not relevant as what has to be considered is whether trees can be said to be "other product raised on the land Ratio |
The words "raised on the land" qualify both the 'crop' and 'other product', so the words "other product" have to be read in the context of the word 'crop' which precedes it Ratio |
It was pointed out by the learned advocate that the High Court was in error in equating other product raised on the land with emblements because the definition of crop in Black's Law Dictionary does include emblements, as such the words 'other product' cannot also be treated as emblements and must therefore be given a ... |
No doubt one of the meanings given in the Black's Law Dictionary does say that in a more restricted sense the word is synonymous with 'fructus industrials ARG |
But the meaning to be ascribed to that word is that it connotes in its larger signification, products of the soil that are grown and raised yearly and are gathered during a single season ARG |
In this sense the term includes "fructus industrials" and having regard to the etymology of the word it has been held to mean only products after they have been severed from the soil ARG |
The same dictionary gives the meaning of the word ,,product" as follows : "Product with reference to property, proceeds ARG |
yield; income; receipts; return ARG |
The "products" of a farm may include, the increase of cattle on the premises ARG |
Even under this definition "product" cannot mean anything which is attached to the land like trees Ratio |
It may, however, include the fruit of the trees Ratio |
This view of ours is supported by the case of Clark and Another v. Gaskarth, 8 Taunt 431 PRE |
That was a case of a trespass for breaking and entering the closes of the plaintiffs and tearing up, digging up, cutting down, and carrying away the plaintiff's trees, plants, roots and seeds, growing on the closes PRE |
Notice of this trespass was given to the defendant PRE |
At the time of the distress the sum of pound 281.6 s. was due from the plaintiffs to the defendant for rent in respect of the nursery ground PRE |
The question before the Court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover against the defendant damages caused to them by cutting down and carrying away the plaintiffs' trees PRE |
It was Contended-that the defendant's action was justified under the statute II G. 2, C. 19, s. 8, which after enumerating certain crops, empowered the landlord to seize as a distress any "other product whatsoever which shall be growing on any part of the estate demised" and, therefore, the trees and shrubs in question... |
The Court rejected the contention that the trees and shrubs could be detrained and held that the word product' in the eighth section of the statute did not extend to trees and shrubs growing in a nurseryman's ground, but that it was confined to products of a similar nature PRE |
with those specified in that section, to all of which the process of becoming ripe, and of being cut, gathered, made, and laid up when ripe, was incidental PRE |
In our view, therefore, trees are not included within the meaning of 'other products raised on the, land' in s. 9 of the Act and there is, therefore, no obligation on the Government to give notice of forfeiture under that section PRE |
It is then contended that even if trees are not included in s. 9 and no notice of forfeiture is necessary, under the general law even a trespasser on the land, whether bona fide or not, is entitled to compensation or damages for the improvements made by him on the land ARG |
We have already agreed with the Trial Court and the High Court that the appellant was not a bona fide trespasser Ratio |
But the learned advocate for the appellant submits that it was not his case nor is it under the general law necessary for a person who trespassed on the land to trespass with a claim of bona fide title ARG |
According to his submission a person is nevertheless a bona fide trespasser if he enters upon the land with a bona fide intention of improving the land Ratio |
No authority has been cited for this novel proposition, and if accepted, it would give validity to a dangerous principle which will condone all acts of deliberate and wrongful trespass because any person desparate enough to trespass on other mans' land without any claim of title can always plead that he had a bona fide... |
This vicarious and altruistic exhibition of good intention may even cause damage to the land of an owner who may not want improvements of such a kind as tree plantation Ratio |
It is true that the maxim of the English law "quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit" i.e. whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil, is Ratio |
not applicable in India but that is not to say that a wrongful trespasser can plant trees on someone else's land and claim a right to those trees after he is evicted Ratio |
The case of Vallabdas Narainji v. Development Officer, Bandra, A.I.R. 1929 PRE |
P.C. 163 1929 Indlaw PC 11 which was cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not assist him, for the Privy Council did not think it necessary to give a decision on what it termed to be a far-reaching contention PRE |
That was a case in which the Government had taken possession of the lands and had erected certain building on the land before a decision under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made as to the appellant's property arid it was contended that the appellant should be allowed the value of the land in the state in which i... |
It appears that the Government had resolved to acquire the land in question and other lands and by arrangement with certain of the sutidars it took possession of such land, including a portion which was in the occupation of the appellant PRE |
Upon such land, including a portion in the possession of the appellant they proceeded to erect buildings without the necessary notification under s. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act which was not served until November 4, 1920 PRE |
On these findings it was observed that the Government were in a position, by law at any rate, to regularize their possession by such a notification a fact which becomes material when it has to be considered what the nature of the trespass is PRE |
Both the Assistant Judge and the High Court negatived the claim of the appellant PRE |
Before the Privy Council it was contended on behalf of the appellant that in the various cases relied upon, there was at least some genuine claim or belief in the party erecting the buildings that he had a title to do so, even though he was eventually held to be a trespasser; and it was urged that no such claim or beli... |
it is in this context that the respondent's contention that even if the appellants were considered to be mere trespassers they would still be entitled to the value of the improvements and contest the claim of the appellant was described, as already stated, as a far-reaching contention PRE |
The Board, however, agreed with what was apparently the view of both Courts in India that under the circumstances of this case, as already set forth, by the law of India, which they appear to have correctly interpreted, the Government officials were in possession "not as mere trespassers" but under such a colour of tit... |
This case does not support the contention that a mere trespasser who has deliberately and wrongfully contrary to the provisions of s. 5 of the Act, entered 'upon another's land which makes such an act even punishable under s. 6 thereof, is entitled to compensation for the trees planted by him on the land Ratio |
In any case, as the High Court rightly observed, the position of a trespasser cannot be better than that of a lawful tenant who having lost his possession cannot claim compensation or damages for anything erected on the land or any improvements made therein Ratio |
The appellant's claim after he was evicted cannot, on the same parity of reasoning, be held to be valid Ratio |
Once the appellant's counsel was confronted I with this proposition, he tried to raise an entirely new point, namely, that no notice of eviction was given to the appellant, and if such a notice had been given to him under s. 9, he would have cut the trees and taken them away, within the time allowed for him to vacate t... |
In support of this contention he has referred us to the leadings contained in paragraph-3 of the plaint in which it is stated : "The improvements effected by the plaintiff have a value of Rs. 2 lakhs as per the accounts shown below Ratio |
In his helplessness the plaintiff had even applied to Government to give him the land in which he had effected improvements, on kuthakapattom Ratio |
But out of the said land 160 acres were taken out of my possession and given to the 2nd defendant even without giving me the opportunity to remove the movable improvements, such as cultivation, cattle, machines, utensils, houses, stocked crops, ripe crops etc., belonging to me Ratio |
These averments in the above paragraph do not clearly allege that he was not evicted without notice, nor has any allegation been made that he was forcibly evicted from the lands with the help of the police etc. as it has now been contended before us Ratio |
On the other hand what the plaintiff (appellant) stated shows that no opportunity was given to him to remove the movable improvements, such as cultivation, cattle, machines, utensils, houses, stocked crops, ripe crops etc. which belonged to him Ratio |
There is nothing stated by him that he had no opportunity to cut trees and take them away Ratio |
Even in paragraph-4 of the plaint where he complains that no notice of forfeiture was given to him, he mentions only the items referred to in paragraph-3 Ratio |
It is in this connection, he says, that no legal procedure had been followed by Government for taking them into possession, which only implies that it is in respect of the items mentioned in paragraph-3 Ratio |
It is again stated in, paragraph-4 that "It was irregular on the part of Government to take possession of the above items Ratio |
The respondent did not understand the averments in the plaint as alleging that no notice to quit was given to him is evident from the written statement of the respondent in paragraph, where it is stated thus Ratio |
This defendant submits that after due notice an order of forfeiture has been passed in Poramboke Case 112 of 11 00 and the plaintiff is therefore not entitled to claim any value of improvements or value of any building Ratio |
The issues that had been famed by the Trial Court also do not refer to this aspect Ratio |
No doubt in the evidence of the plaintiff P.W. 1 states that he was evicted from the lands without giving him an opportunity to remove the improvements, and in cross-examination he was asked whether he was not given any notice prior to the dispossession and he said that certainly no notice was, received Ratio |
P.W. 4 the Manager was asked in cross-examination whether he had been given any priorinformation or notice about eviction and this witness also said that there was no prior information or notice Ratio |
While these passages might show that no notice of eviction was given, even at that stage there was no application for an issue being framed, nor has such an application been made in the appeal before the High Court, nor even before this Court Ratio |
in it has been held that the appellant was not a mere trespasser and had deliberately entered upon the lands knowing full well that he had no right, claim or title to the lands or had in any manner a right to enter the land and has been rightly evicted as a trespasser, he cannot now be permitted to raise this contentio... |
In the view we have taken, the appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, but the court fee will be recovered from the appellant RPC |
Appeal dismissed RPC |
Three civil appeals, stemming from three revision petitions to the High Court of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (Orissa Act I of 1952) (for short, the Act) have reached this Court, thanks to special leave granted to the appellant, who is common in all the cases FAC |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.