On June 4, 1959 the respondent made an application under s. 11 of the Act for acquiring proprietary rights in the lands set out C therein claiming to be the ·cultivating tenant of those lands and produced a copy of lamabandhi in support of his claim. He stated that he was the tenant of the Union of India in respect of the said lands, that he was cultivating the said lands, that he was paying Rs. 35/5/- annually as rent and Rs. 23/8/- as annual land revenue and other rates and cesses assessed on the said lands and D· that he was willing to pay compensation as provided by the Act. On November 26, 1959 the Forest Department on behalf of the Union filed objections alleging that the application was incompetent, that the said lands formed part of the protected· forest, that the relationship between the respondent and the Union was not that of landlord and tenant, that the Union being the paramount :s· owner could not be characterised as landlord qua the respondent, that a number of trees stood on the said lands, that the respondent was merely a lessee of the said lands which· were a forest area, that the entries in the revenue record in respect of the said lands were incorrect and could not be relied on in an application under section 11 and consequently the Compensation Officer, Mahasu, had no jurisdiction to grant it. The Compensation Offi· Y cer held that the said area was not a forest area, that there were no trees on the said lands as alleged and that since the respondent was mentioned as an occupancy tenant in the lamabandhi he was entitled to proprietary rights in the said lands on his paying compensation which he fixed at Rs. 76.40 np. The Forest Department thereupon filed an appeal before the District Judge, Mahasu, G principally on the ground that the Compensation Officer had not followed the procedure laid down in the Act and had not given to the Forest Department reasonable opportunity to put forward its case. The Forest Department did not dispute in the said appeal that the appellant held the said lands as a tenant of the Government On July 26, 1960 the District Judge allowed the B. appeal and remanded the case to the Compensation Officer directing him to raise proper issues and decide the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Compensation Officer raised ('l f 1959] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 160. (') 1960] 3 S.C.R. 755.
