{"id":261871,"date":"1966-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966"},"modified":"2018-03-29T16:18:37","modified_gmt":"2018-03-29T10:48:37","slug":"chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","title":{"rendered":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 166, 1966 SCR (1)\t 58<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRATTAN SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n07\/04\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nSIKRI, S.M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  166\t\t  1966 SCR  (1)\t 58\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1981 SC 479\t (6,7)\n\n\nACT:\nCentral\t Provinces  and\t Berar\tForest\tContract  Rules-Rule\n15(1)--Scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder  r.  15(1) of the Central Provinces and  Berar  Forest\nContract  Rules a forest contractor is responsible  for\t any\ndamage done in a reserved forest by himself or his  servants\nor agents and compensation for such damage is to be assessed\nby the Divisional Forest Officer.  The respondent was, under\na contract, granted a right to the forest produce.  By cl. 9\nof  the\t Contract any doubt or dispute arising\tbetween\t the\nparties\t as  to\t the performance or breach  of\tany  of\t the\nconditions  of the contract had to be referred to the  Chief\nConservator of Forests for decision.  The Divisional  Forest\nOfficer,  acting  under r. 15(1), held that  the  contractor\ncommitted  a  breach  of  the  contract\t and  assessed\t the\ncompensation for damages.\nHELD:Rule  15(1)  does\tnot  invest  the  Divisional  Forest\nOfficer with authority to determine whether the\t contractor,\nhis  servants or his agents have committed a breach  of\t the\ncontract.  When a dispute arises between the contractor\t and\nthe forest authorities relating to the performance or breach\nof the contract, there has to be, under the terms of cl.  9,\na  reference  to the officer denominated  in  the  contract.\nAfter  liability  is  determined, there may have  to  be  an\nassessment,   by   the\tDivisional   Forest   Officer,,\t  of\ncompensation  payable by the contractor to the State,  There\nis no inconsistency between cl. 9 of the Contract and r.  15\n[161 F-H; 162 E-F].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:\t Civil Appeal  No.  255\t of
\n1964.]
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nNovember 14, 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in  Misc.
\nPetition No. 273 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
B.   Sen, R. P. Kapur and 1. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
\nS.   P. Sinha, and S. Shaukat Hussain, for the respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J.  Under  a contract dated  October  14.  1956,\t the
\nrespondent  was granted a right to the forest  produce\tfrom
\nCoupe  No. 9, Lendara in the Saiura Borgain Reserved  Forest
\nin  the Kanker Forest Division of Bastar District of  Madhya
\nPradesh, for the period October 14, 1956 to March 31,  1958.
\nThe Divisional Forest Officer held an enquiry in respect  of
\ncertain breaches committed by the respondent of the terms of
\nthe  contract, and by order dated January 30, 1958  directed
\nthe  respondent in exercise of the authority under r.  15(1)
\nof  the\t Forest Contract Rules framed by the  Government  of
\nCenytral Provinces & Berar, to pay Rs. 8,500 as compensation
\nassessed by him for damage done in the reserved
\n\t\t\t    159<\/span>
\nforest\tand Rs. 500 as penalty under r. 30(1) of the  Forest
\nContract  Rules.   An  appeal  against\tthe  order  to\t the
\nConservator of Forests, and a revision petition to the Chief
\nConservator  of Forests, Madhya Pradesh, were  unsuccessful.
\nThe  respondent then moved the High Court of Madhya  Pradesh
\nby a petition under Art. 226<\/a> of the Constitution for a\twrit
\nquashing the order dated January 30, 1958 directing  payment
\nof  compensation and penalty and restraining enforcement  of
\nthe  order.   The  High\t Court\tgranted\t the  petition\t and
\nrestrained  the\t State\tand  the  forest  authorities\tfrom
\nrecovering Rs. 9,000, ordered on January 30, 1958, from\t the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
In  this  appeal,  the appellants  contended  in  the  first
\ninstance that the High Court was in error in holding that by
\nr.  15\tof the Forest Contract Rules the  Divisional  Forest
\nOfficer\t was not authorized to direct the contractor to\t pay
\ncompensation  for  damage  done\t by him\t or  his  agents  or
\nservants, because the coupe was not in “a reserved  forest”.
\nSuch  a\t case,\tit  was\t said,\twas  never  pleaded  by\t the
\ncontractor  in his petition, and the High Court in  granting
\nrelief\tto  the\t respondent  made  out\ta  case\t which\t the
\nappellants had no opportunity to meet.\tIn support of  their
\ncase  that the coupe is a part of the reserved\tforest,\t the
\nappellants have annexed to their petition for special  leave
\na  “true copy” of a notification issued under S. 20<\/a>  of\t the
\nIndian\t Forest\t Act,  1927,  as  applied  to  the   Central
\nProvinces,  declaring that the State forests of\t the  Bastar
\nDistrict in Tahsil Kanker Sainmura-Borgaon specified in\t the
\nSchedule shall be reserved forests.\n<\/p>\n
We agree with the appellants that the High Court has without
\nany  plea  or evidence assumed that  compensation  under  r.
\n15(1) could not be directed to be paid by the contractor for
\ndamage done in the coupe, for which he was given a contract,
\nbecause\t the coupe was not included in a.  reserved  forest.
\nThe plea which appealed to the High Court was not raised  in
\nthe petition, nor in the objections to the Divisional Forest
\nOfficer\t in  reply to the notice to show cause, nor  in\t the
\nmemorandum of appeal before the Conservator of Forests,\t nor
\nin the petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of\t the
\nChief  Conservator of Forests.\tThe High Court assumed\tthat
\nbecause\t the forest authorities charged the contractor\twith
\n“illegal  fellings  in\tthe  coupe”  granted  to  him,\t the
\n“fellings  could  not be in a reserved\tforest”.   For\tthis
\nassumption  there  is  no  warrant.   The  High\t Court\t was
\ntherefore  in  error  in  setting up  the  ground  that\t the
\nimpugned order was not authorised by the terms of r. 15(1).
\nBut  the appeal filed by the appellants must still  fail  on
\nthe grounds to be presently set out.\n<\/p>\n
\t      The  following are the relevant terms  of\t the
\n\t      contract:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1. The Governor hereby agrees to sell to\t the
\n\t      forest  contractor, and the forest  contractor
\n\t      agrees   to   purchase  the   forest   produce
\n\t      described in the First Schedule hereunder
\n\t      160   …….situated in the area specified in
\n\t      the said
\n\t      Schedule………\t   on\t  the\t  conditions
\n\t      hereinafter stated.” The\t  First\t    Schedule
\n\t      describes the area of the forestand sets\t out
\n\t      the forest produce sold under the contract.
\n\t       “6.  The\t forest contractor shall be  subject
\n\t      to  the Forest Contract Rules as amended\tfrom
\n\t      time  to\ttime  (a  copy\tof  which  has\tbeen
\n\t      furnished\t  to  the  forest  contractor,\t the
\n\t      receipt of which the forest contractor  hereby
\n\t      acknowledges) and the Rules shall be deemed to
\n\t      De part of this contract in so far as they are
\n\t      applicable thereto:\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat the said Rules shall be  deemed
\n\t      to  be  modified\tto tile extent\tand  in\t the
\n\t      manner  laid  down  in  the  Second   Schedule
\n\t      hereunder.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      “7. The forest contractor hereby binds himself
\n\t      to  perform all acts and duties required,\t and
\n\t      to  abstain  by himself and  his\tservants  or
\n\t      agents  from performing any act  forbidden  by
\n\t      the  Indian  Forest Act<\/a>, 1927, by\t the  Forest
\n\t      Contract Rules and by this contract.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “9.  In  the  event of any  doubt\t or  dispute
\n\t      arising\tbetween\t the  parties  as   to\t the
\n\t      interpretation  of  any of the  conditions  of
\n\t      this  contract  or as to\tthe  performance  or
\n\t      breach  thereof, the matter shall be  referred
\n\t      to  the Chief Conservator of  Forests,  Madhya
\n\t      Pradesh, Nagpur, whose decision shall be final
\n\t      and binding on the parties hereto.”\n<\/p>\n
By  cl. 6 of the contract, the Forest Contract Rules  framed
\nby the local Government are made part of the contract.\t The
\nmaterial clauses of the Rules read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2.  All\tcontracts whereby  Government  sells
\n\t      forest  produces\tto  a  purchaser  shall\t  be
\n\t      subject  to the following rules, in so far  as
\n\t      they  are applicable, and these rules,  in  so
\n\t      far as they are applicable, shall be deemed to
\n\t      be binding on every forest contractor not only
\n\t      as  rules made under the Forest Act<\/a>, but\talso
\n\t      as conditions of his forest contract:
\n\t      Provided\tthat the forest officer executing  a
\n\t      forest contract shall have power to vary these
\n\t      rules  by express provision in such  contract,
\n\t      and  where  these rules are in  conflict\twith
\n\t      such   an\t express  provision,  such   express
\n\t      provision shall prevail:Provided further
\n\t      “15(1)   A   forest   contractor\t shall\t  be
\n\t      responsible for any damage that may be done in
\n\t      a\t reserved forest by himself or his  servants
\n\t      and agents.  The compensation for such  damage
\n\t      shall  be\t assessed by the  Divisional  Forest
\n\t      Officer, whose decision shall be deemed to  be
\n\t      that of an arbitrator and shall be
\n\t\t\t\t   161<\/span>
\n\t      final  and binding on the parties,  except  to
\n\t      the  extent  that it shall be  subject  to  an
\n\t      appeal to the Conservator of Forests.
\n\t      Explanation…………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Any\t sum assessed as damages under\tthis
\n\t      rule  shall be recoverable as arrears of\tland
\n\t      revenue………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “30(1)  Where the forest contractor commits  a
\n\t      breach  of  any  of  the\tconditions  of\t his
\n\t      contract\tbut it is not proposed to  terminate
\n\t      his  contract  on account thereof,  the  whole
\n\t      penalty  provided for in rule 28 shall not  be
\n\t      recovered from him, but the Divisional  Forest
\n\t      Officer shall have power to recover a  portion
\n\t      thereof, not exceeding five hundred rupees, in
\n\t      accordance  with the provisions of section  85<\/a>
\n\t      of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   An\t order\tof  the\t Divisional   Forest
\n\t      Officer  under this rule shall be\t subject  to
\n\t      appeal  to the Conservator of Forests  if\t the
\n\t      amount levied exceeds two hundred rupees,\t but
\n\t      shall otherwise be final.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (3)The  payment of a sum assessed under\tthis
\n\t      rule shall absolve the forest contractor\tfrom
\n\t      all further liabilities under his contract  in
\n\t      respect  of such breach, except his  liability
\n\t      under  rule 15 for damage done in\t a  reserved
\n\t      forest.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On  behalf  of the respondent it was urged before  the\tHigh
\nCourt, as also before this Court, that where a dispute arose
\nbetween\t the Divisional Forest Officer and  the\t contractor,
\nwhether\t the contractor, his servants or agents\t had  caused
\ndamage\tin a reserved forest, the question could be  decided
\nin  the\t manner appointed in cl. 9 of  the  contract  alone,
\ni.e., by arbitration of the officer denominated, and not  by
\nthe Divisional Forest Officer.\tIn dealing with the validity
\nof  the order imposing penalty upon the contractor the\tHigh
\nCourt  upheld that argument.  Rule 15 in the first  instance
\ndeclares that the forest contractor shall be responsible for
\nany  damage  done  either by himself,  or  his\tservants  or
\nagents: it then proceeds to state that compensation shall be
\nassessed  by  the Divisional Forest Officer  whose  decision
\nshall  be deemed to be that of an arbitrator subject  to  an
\nappeal\tto  the Conservator of Forests.\t The rule  does\t not
\nconfer\tupon  the  Divisional Forest  Officer  authority  to
\ndetermine, when a dispute is raised, whether damage has been
\ncaused in a reserved forest by the contractor, his agents or
\nhis  servants.\tThe rule only declares that for damage\tthat
\nmay  be done, by the contractor, his servants or agents,  in
\nthe  forest, the contractor shall be liable: the  rule\talso
\ninvites\t the  Divisional Forest Officer\t with  authority  to
\ndetermine   the\t amount\t of  compensation  payable  by\t the
\ncontractor, but not to determine whether the contractor, his
\nservants  or  his  agents  have\t committed  breach  of\t the
\ncontract.   Clause 9 of the contract confers authority\tupon
\nthe   Chief  Conservator  of  Forests  to  adjudicate\tupon
\ndisputes, inter alia, as to the performance or breach of the
\ncontractor.   By.  cl.\t I read with  the  Schedule  to\t the
\ncontract “the contractor had to fell or uproot
\n162<\/span>
\ntrees marked with a geru band or to fell trees on coupes and
\nsection lines which bear a marking hammer impression on\t the
\nstump buttends and all Karra over 9″ at B.H. whether  marked
\nor  not”.It  was the case of the Divisional  Forest  Officer
\nthat  the  contractor  had, contrary to\t the  terms  of\t the
\ncontract, cut trees not marked with the geru band.  Plainly,
\nthe  Divisional Forest Officer claimed that  the  contractor
\nhad  committed\ta breach of the terms of the  contract,\t and
\nwhen  the  contractor  denied the breach,  a  dispute  arose
\nbetween\t the parties as to the performance or breach of\t the
\nterms  of  the contract, and it had to be  referred  to\t the
\nChief  Conservator of Forests.\tIt is conceded, and  in\t our
\njudgment  counsel  is  right  in  so  conceding,  that\t the
\nexpression  “shall be referred to” means “shall be  referred
\nto  the Officer denominated” as an arbitrator to decide\t the
\ndispute.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t argued\t however  that by virtue of  cl.  6  of\t the
\ncontract,  the Forest Contract Rules were made part  of\t the
\ncontract,  and\tthe Divisional Forest Officer  was  invested
\nwith   authority  not  only  to\t determine  the\t amount\t  of
\ncompensation  which  may be payable by\tthe  contractor\t for
\ndamage\tdone  in a reserved forest, but\t also  to  determine
\nwhether\t the contractor or his agents or servants  had\tbeen
\nresponsible  for  causing  the damage.\t This,\tfor  reasons
\nalready stated, we are unable to accept.\n<\/p>\n
There is no inconsistency between cl. 9 of the contract\t and
\nr. 15. It is unnecessary, therefore, to consider whether  in
\ncase  of inconsistency, the terms of the contract  expressly
\nsetting\t out a certain covenant may supersede the  terms  of
\nthe  rule.  Under r. 15 the liability for damage done  in  a
\nreserved  forest is declared against the contractor.  He  is
\nalso declared liable to pay compensation as may be  assessed
\nby the Divisional Forest Officer.  But the Divisional Forest
\nOfficer is not invested with authority to determine  whether
\nthe  damage  was  done\tby the\tcontractor,  his  agents  or
\nservants.   That is a matter which must be determined  in  a
\nreference under cl. 9 of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
It  was urged by the appellants that it could not have\tbeen
\nintended   by  the  rule-making\t authority,  who  had\talso
\nprescribed  the\t form  as part of the  rules  in  which\t the
\ncontract  was  required\t to  be\t executed,  to\tset  Lip   a
\ncomplicated  and  clumsy procedure for\tdetermination  of  a
\ndispute about the breach of contract, if the language of the
\nrules were ambiguous, this may be a relevant  consideration.
\nWhen a dispute arises between the contractor and the  forest
\nauthorities  relating  to the performance or breach  of\t the
\ncontract,  there  has,\tunder the terms of cl. 9,  to  be  a
\nreference to the Officer denominated in the contract.  After
\nliability is determined, there may have to be an  assessment
\nby the Divisional Forest Officer of compensation payable  by
\nthe contractor to the State.\n<\/p>\n
163<\/span><\/p>\n
That  would necessitate another inquiry.  The  procedure  is
\napparently  clumsy  and likely to be dilatory.\tBut  we\t are
\nunable\tto  ignore the plain terms of the contract  and\t the
\nrules,\tand to hold that in respect of the determination  of
\nresponsibility\tfor damage done in a reserved forest,  there
\nneed  be  no  reference\t under cl. 9 of\t the  terms  of\t the
\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n
It  was then urged that in any event a decision was in\tfact
\ngiven by the Chief Conservator of Forests in this case,\t and
\nthat decision complied with the requirements of cl. 9 of the
\ncontract.   But\t as already stated,  the  Divisional  Forest
\nOfficer passed an order holding the respondent liable to pay
\ncompensation  for  damage  done in  a  reserved\t forest\t and
\nassessing  the compensation at Rs. 8,500 and penalty at\t Rs.\n<\/p>\n
500.  That order was confirmed in appeal by the\t Conservator
\nof  Forests, and in exercise of his revisional\tjurisdiction
\nthe  Chief  Conservator of Forests upheld the order  of\t the
\nConservator  of Forests.  The Chief Conservator\t of  Forests
\ndid not even purport to act as an arbitrator: he recorded no
\nevidence,  and\texpressly held that  the  Divisional  Forest
\nOfficer\t was not obliged to refer the case  for\t arbitration
\nunder  cl.  9  of  the contract, The  trial  was  not  of  a
\nproceeding  in arbitration, but of a proceeding in  exercise
\nof supervisory or revisional jurisdiction.  If in truth\t the
\ndispute\t had  to be referred for adjudication to  the  Chief
\nConservator of Forests, his decision that he found no reason
\nto  interfere  with the “findings of the  Divisional  Forest
\nOfficer”  who was one of the parties to the dispute,  cannot
\nconceivably  be regarded as an award between two  contesting
\nparties.  It must therefore be held that the order passed by
\nthe   Divisional  Forest  Officer  imposing  liability\t for
\ncompensation  for damage done by illegal fellings cannot  be
\nsustained.\n<\/p>\n
The second part of the order imposing penalty under r. 30(1)
\nalso suffers from the same infirmity.  It is true that under
\nthe  rule the Divisional Forest Officer had power to  impose
\npenalty\t in  a sum not exceeding Rs. 500.  But\texercise  of
\nthat  power is conditioned by the existence of a  breach  by
\nthe  forest contractor of any of the terms of the  contract.
\nWhere  a, dispute arises whether there has been a breach  of
\nany of the terms of the contract, it is, for reasons already
\nstated,\t to  be\t determined  by\t the  Chief  Conservator  of
\nForests.   That\t has admittedly not been  done.\t  The  order
\nimposing penalty under r. 30(1) must also be set aside.
\nThe appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
164<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 166, 1966 SCR (1) 58 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: RATTAN SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/04\/1966 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. WANCHOO, K.N. […]<\/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-261871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - 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\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-29T10:48:37+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T10:48:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2464,\"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\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\",\"name\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-29T10:48:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - 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\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-29T10:48:37+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966","datePublished":"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T10:48:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966"},"wordCount":2464,"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\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966","name":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And ... vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-29T10:48:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-vs-rattan-singh-on-7-april-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chief Conservator Of Forests And … vs Rattan Singh on 7 April, 1966"}]},{"@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\/261871","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=261871"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261871\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}