{"id":233097,"date":"2001-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001"},"modified":"2015-11-11T16:18:48","modified_gmt":"2015-11-11T10:48:48","slug":"divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","title":{"rendered":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001<\/div>\n
Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n
Bench: S.N.Variava, S.S.M.Quadri<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2529  of  1997\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nDIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTATA FINLAY LTD. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/07\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nS.N.Variava, S.S.M.Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe State of Kerala and the Divisional Forest Officers of two
\ndivisions are in appeal, by special leave, against the judgment and
\norder of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P.No.1156 of
\n1981 dated January 31, 1984.\tThe High Court held that the Kerala
\nGrants and Leases (Modification of Rights) Act, 1980 (for short ‘the
\n1980 Act’) was not applicable to the lands held by the respondents
\nunder lease and quashed the impugned demand notices issued by the
\nappellants demanding seigniorage rates from the lessees for all the
\nproduce cut and removed from the demised lands, as per sanction
\ngiven, including produce consumed inside the concession area by
\nthem.\n<\/p>\n
The dispute centres round the validity of demand of seigniorage
\nrates raised  by the appellants in respect of cutting and removing
\neucalyptus trees grown\tand used by the respondents on the land held
\nby them as lessee.\n<\/p>\n
To make the controversy intelligible, it will be necessary to
\nnote the relevant facts.\n<\/p>\n
The first respondent is the successor-in-interest of the lessee of
\nPoonjar concession land. It carries on the business of plantation and
\nmanufacturing tea.  On July 11, 1877, Poonjar Chief granted
\nconcession by way of lease of large extent of land in the erstwhile
\nTravancore State, in favour of one John Daniel Munro for
\nconsideration of Rs.5000\/- and yearly rent of Rs.3,000\/-.  The grant
\nwas ratified by Maharajah of Travancore under a deed executed on
\nNovember 28, 1878.  On a request made by the said Munro, a further
\nconcession was granted in respect of the same land with some
\nextended rights on July 26, 1879.  That land which comprises of
\nKannan Devan Hills was later transferred by him in favour of  North
\nTravancore Land Planting and Agricultural Society Ltd. on December
\n8, 1879.  With regard to reduction of the tax liability under the said
\ndeed an agreement was entered into between the society and the
\nPoonjar Chief on August 2, 1886.  By a Royal Proclamation dated
\nSeptember 24, 1899 made by the Maharaja\t the territory of Poonjar
\nChief including the lands in question was made part of the State of
\nTravancore reserving the right of Poonjar Chief to receive the annual
\nrent of Rs.3000\/- under the aforementioned concession. The first
\nrespondent also holds as lessee ‘Malki Marai Estate’ which was leased
\nout by the Maharaja of the erstwhile Government of Cochin in favour
\nof its predecessor-in-interest. The land in dispute encompasses both
\nKannan Devan Hills area as well as Malki Marai Estate. The second
\nrespondent is the Regional Officer of the first respondent (hereinafter
\nthey will be referred to as ‘the respondent’).
\n After States re-organization the State of Travancore and
\nCochin became part of the State of Kerala.  In 1971, the State of
\nKerala passed the Kannan Devan Hills (Resumption of Lands) Act,
\n1971 (for short ‘the 1971 Act’) which came into force on January 21,
\n1971.  By Section 3(1) of the 1971 Act the possession of the entire
\nextent of the land situated in the Kannan Devan Hills village in the
\nDevicolam taluk stood transferred to and vested in the Government of
\nKerala free from all encumbrances   Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 3 provides that sub-section (1) shall not apply to plantations
\nother than plantations belonging to tresspassers.  Under Section 4 of
\nthe said Act possession of the land which had vested in the State
\nunder Section 3(1), was restored on the application of the respondent
\non the same terms and conditions on which it was holding before the
\nappointed day.\tThereafter, the State of Kerala passed the
\naforementioned 1980 Act.  Section 3 of the 1980 Act  specifies the
\ngrants and leases of lands to which that Act applies.  Section 4 which
\nis in the nature of charging section imposes an obligation on the
\ngrantees and lessees to pay seigniorage rates in force for the time
\nbeing for the timber cut and removed from any land held by him
\nunder the grant or lease.  It is under that section that the appellants
\nraised demand against the respondents.\tIn O.P.No.1156-H of 1981,
\nfiled in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, the respondent
\nchallenged the constitutional validity of the Act, the legality of the
\ndemand and sought a writ prohibiting the appellants from interfering
\nwith felling of eucalyptus and other trees for the use of the respondent
\nand from levying seigniorage on such trees and firewood under the
\nAct.  The High Court by judgment dated January 31, 1984, under
\nchallenge, declared that the provisions of the 1980 Act did not apply
\nto the lands in question, quashed the demand raised under various
\nletters and issued a writ prohibiting the appellants from interfering
\nwith the cutting of eucalyptus and other trees for the respondents own
\nrequirement and from levying seigniorage on such trees and firewood
\nunder the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Having regard to the nature of real controversy which arises in
\nthis appeal, we consider it unnecessary to refer to the various
\ncontentions urged by Mr.P.Krishnamurthi, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the appellants and Mr.Ashok H.Desai, the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the respondents.\t  The respondent is primarily
\naggrieved by levy of seigniorage rates under Section 4 of the 1980 Act
\non the eucalyptus and other trees which were cut and utilised in the
\nfactories which are situated within the boundaries of the lands in
\nquestion.  This issue can be resolved with reference to the provisions
\nof Section 4 of the 1980 Act which reads as under :
\n“4. Grantees and lessees to pay current
\nseigniorage rates – (1) Notwithstanding anything
\ncontained in any law for the time being in force, or
\nin any grant, lease deed, contract or agreement, or
\nin any judgment, decree or order of any court, with
\neffect on and from the commencement of this Act,
\nevery grantee and every lessee shall be bound to
\npay to the Government the seigniorage rates in
\nforce for the time being for the timber cut and
\nremoved from any land held by him under the
\ngrant or lease.”\n<\/p>\n
The section, quoted above, commences with a non-obstante
\nclause and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of that section
\nover anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or in
\nany grant, lease deed, contract or agreement, or in any judgment,
\ndecree or order of any court, with effect on and from the
\ncommencement of that Act (June 25, 1980).  The impost —
\nseigniorage rates in force for the time being — is payable by every
\ngrantee and lessee to the Government for the timber cut and removed
\nfrom any land held by him under the grant or lease.  Thus, it is clear
\nthat every grantee and every lessee is made liable to pay the
\nGovernment seigniorage at the rates in force for the time being in
\nforce for the timber cut and removed from any land held by him under
\nthe grant or lease.  Since the liability to pay seigniorage is cast on the
\ngrantee and the lessee, it may be necessary to notice the meanings of
\nthe terms ‘grant, grantee, lease and lessee’ defined in clauses (b), (c)\n<\/p>\n
(d) and (e) respectively of Section 2.\t They are as follows :
\n“(b) “grant” means any grant to which this Act
\napplies.\n<\/p>\n
  (c)  “grantee” means the person in whose favour a
\ngrant has been made and includes his heirs,
\nsuccessors and assigns;\n<\/p>\n
  (d)  “lease” means any lease to which this Act
\napplies;\n<\/p>\n
  (e)  “lessee” means the person in whose favour a
\nlease deed has been executed and includes his
\nheirs, successors and assigns.”\n<\/p>\n
A perusal of the definition of terms ‘grant’ and ‘lease’ indicates
\nthat the liability under Section 4 extends to only those grants and
\nleases which satisfy the requirements of Section 3 of the 1980 Act.
\nThe High Court, as noted above, held that the 1980 Act would not
\napply to subject ‘leases’.  In our view, as alluded, without touching
\nupon that aspect, the appeal can be decided on the terms of Section 4
\nof the 1980 Act, referred to above.\n<\/p>\n
Now, reverting to Section 4 of the 1980 Act, Mr.Ashok Desai
\nwould contend that a claim for seigniorage implied ownership of a
\nshare in the property in respect of which it would be payable; that
\nword is equivalent of Malyalam term “kuzhi kanam” which means
\nowner or shareholder and as the eucalyptus trees were grown by the
\nrespondent and the appellants had no share in them, the impugned
\ndemand was unsustainable and was rightly so held by the High Court.
\nThe first point that is required to be examined is the import of the
\nexpression “seigniorage”.  It is not defined in the Act.  It is not a term
\nof art.\t It has to be understood in the meaning it bears in English. The
\nrelevant meaning of that expression “seigniorage” given\t [in the New
\nShorter Oxford English Dictionary] is :\t  Profit made by a government
\nby issuing currency; the difference or margin between the face value
\nof coins and their production costs; the Crown’s right to charge a
\npercentage on bullion brought to a mint for coining; the amount
\ncharged, something claimed by a monarch or feudal lord as a
\nprerogative.\n<\/p>\n
From the above meaning, it may be seen that the expression
\n“seigniorage” has two distinct meanings (i) profit made by a
\nGovernment by issuing currency, the Crown’s right to charge a
\npercentage on bullion brought to a mint for coining; and (ii)
\nsomething claimed by a monarch or feudal lord as a prerogative. We
\nare unable to accept that seigniorage is used in Section 4 synonymous
\nwith “kuzhi kanam” because the legislature has used the said
\nexpression in clause (d) of Section 3 in the sense of conferment of
\nright of ownership by the State on payment of royalty, kuzhi kanam.
\nThe distinction between kuttikanom and seigniorage is
\nexplained by a Kerala High Court in Leslie vs. State of Kerala [AIR
\n1970 Kerala 21] in the following words :\n<\/p>\n
“We do not think that ‘kuttikanom’ is either a fee
\nor tax.\t A tax or fee is levied in the exercise of
\nsovereign power.  We think that in the context
\n‘kuttikanom’ means the Government’s share of the
\nvalue of the reserved trees.”\n<\/p>\n
And it has been approved by this Court in State of Kerala vs. Kanan
\nDevan Hills Produce Co.<\/a> [1991 (2) SCC 272] in paragraph 20 which
\nreads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“It was further held by Mathew, J. that kuttikanom
\nbeing the Government’s share of the value of the
\ntrees owned by the Government it has the power to
\nfix the value of the trees.  We agree with the
\nreasoning and conclusions reached by Mathew, J.
\nSince the ownership over the tree growth and
\ntimber in Concession Area vests with the
\nGovernment it has a right to impose kuttikanom on
\nthe removal of the trees from within the
\nConcession Area.”\n<\/p>\n
 In Section 4(1), the expression “seigniorage” is employed to
\nenforce a prerogative of the State de hors the right of ownership in the
\nproperty.  Therefore, the contention of Mr.Desai cannot be accepted.
\nThe second point for consideration is : whether eucalyptus trees
\nfall within the meaning of timber.  This term is also not defined in the
\nAct.  Its ordinary meaning in English may be gathered from :
\nThe Concise Oxford Dictionary, Eight Edition, 1990 at p.1277
\nTimber : wood prepared for building, carpentry etc.
\na piece of wood or beam, esp. as the rib of a
\nvessel
\nlarge standing trees suitable for timber;\n<\/p>\n
woods or forest
\n\t       a warning cry that a tree is about to fall
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edn. Vol.19 at p.21
\nTimber : At common law oak, ash and elm are timber
\nif over twenty years old, but not so old as to
\nhave no usable wood in them.  Other trees
\nmay be timber by the custom of the country.\n<\/p>\n
Thus beech is timber by the custom of
\nBuckinghamshire and parts of
\nGloucestershire.  Aspen and horse-chestnut
\nare timber in some countries.  Trees less
\nthan six inches in diameter have been said
\nnot to be timber.\n<\/p>\n
Agricultural usages between landlord and
\ntenant also frequently define the species of
\ntrees which are regarded as timber in the
\nlocalities where the usages subsist.  In a
\ncontract for the sale of standing timber,
\n“timber” may be synonymous with “trees”\n<\/p>\n
and so include lops and tops as well as
\ntrunks.\t By statute, “timber” includes all
\nforest products.\n<\/p>\n
In New Webster’s Dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘timber’ is<\/p>\n
“Building material, timber……….. wood
\nsuitable for building or for use in carpentry;
\nthe wood of growing trees suitable for
\nstructural uses; growing trees themselves; a
\nsingle beam or peace of wood forming or
\ncapable of forming part of a structure……….\n<\/p>\n
Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol.54 at p.1<\/p>\n
The word “timber” has an enlarged or
\nrestricted sense, according to the connection
\nin which it is employed, and may refer to
\nstanding trees or wood suitable for the
\nmanufacture of lumber to be used for
\nbuilding and allied purposes.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, it is seen that the word ‘timber’ may be used in a
\nrestricted as well as enlarged sense.  In the restricted sense it means
\nspecified trees like oak, ash, elm, teak, blackwood, abony, karumthali
\netc.  and in the enlarged sense it means woods suitable for building,
\nfurniture and carpentry etc. and includes standing trees. Its true
\nmeaning has to be determined from the context in which it is
\nemployed.  In this connection it will be appropriate to refer to Section
\n3 of the 1980 Act which specifies the terms and conditions of the
\ngrants and leases of lands to which the Act applies.  A perusal of
\nclause (a) in the light of the meaning of ‘timber’, noted above, shows
\nthat the word ‘timber’ is used in Section 4 of the 1980 Act, in the
\nenlarged sense to mean trees other than teak, blackwood, ebony,
\nKarumthali etc. and in that sense it includes standing eucalyptus trees.
\nThe last aspect that needs to be addressed is whether felling of
\neucalyptus trees and taking them to the factory of the respondent
\nsituate on the land in dispute, amounts to removal of timber cut from
\nany land held by it under the lease.\n<\/p>\n
In our view, the words ‘cut and removed from any land’ used in
\nSection 4 do not suggest felling of the trees and removing the wood
\nfrom one part to another on the land.  They would indicate cutting the
\ntrees and removing them out of the limits of the land held by the
\ngrantee or the lessee under the grant or lease.
\nAdmittedly, in this case, the eucalyptus trees which are felled
\nare taken to the factory of the respondents which is on the lands in
\nquestion.  Therefore, by cutting and taking the wood of the felled
\neucalyptus trees from the place where they are cut to the factory on
\nthe demised land where they are consumed, the respondent does not
\nincur liability to pay seigniorage rates under Section 4 of the 1980
\nAct.  On this ground alone, the impugned demand is liable to be
\nquashed and to that extent we confirm the impugned judgment of the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
Inasmuch as the High Court had held that the letters of demand
\nwere unsustainable in law and quashed them, it was not necessary for
\nthe High Court to go into the question as to whether the provisions of
\nthe 1980 Act would apply to the leases of the lands in question.  In
\nthis view of the matter, we are not inclined to go into the question as
\nto whether Section 3 of the 1980 Act applies to the leases of the land
\nin question and leave the question open to be decided in an
\nappropriate matter.  We, therefore, vacate the findings recorded by the
\nHigh Court on this point.\n<\/p>\n
In the result we dismiss the appeal and direct the parties to bear
\ntheir own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 Author: S S Quadri Bench: S.N.Variava, S.S.M.Quadri CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2529 of 1997 PETITIONER: DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: TATA FINLAY LTD. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/07\/2001 BENCH: S.N.Variava, S.S.M.Quadri JUDGMENT: SYED […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233097","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDivisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\"},\"wordCount\":2627,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\",\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001","datePublished":"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001"},"wordCount":2627,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001","name":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-11T10:48:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/divisional-forest-officer-ors-vs-tata-finlay-ltd-anr-on-10-july-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Divisional Forest Officer & Ors vs Tata Finlay Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2001"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233097","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=233097"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233097\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233097"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233097"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233097"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}