ORDER Bhargva J. 1. The petitioner, Smt. Gulab bai, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order, dated 14th December 1961, (Ex. P-8), passed by the Board of Revenue in Appeal No. 424 of 1958 1963 RN-SN 123, whereby it was held against her that no valid tenancy of Khasra no. 211 measuring 217.97 acres and Khasra no. 12 measuring 17.50 acres of village Dubeli, tehsil Balaghat, was created in her favour under the lease deed, dated 6-1-1949. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the order (Ex P-11) passed by the Board of Revenue on 27-9-1962 dismissing her application for review of the aforesaid order of 14-12-1961. 2. The petitioner's case briefly stated, is that her husband was the sole Malguzar of Mauza Dubeli up to the time of the abolition of proprietary rights (i.e. 1-4-1951); that the aforesaid two fields in question were recorded in the settlement of the village in 1915-16 as "big tree forest"; that on 6-9-1941, the ex-Malguzar had applied for permission to clear the forest growth under Rules framed under Section 202 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, to the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, who had ordered that no permission was necessary (vide Ex. P-1) ; that thereafter, the ex-Malguzar brought some of the land in the said two fields under plough ; that on 4-5-1958 by way of abundant caution, the ex-Malguzar gave notice to the Deputy Commissioner that he wanted to clear the remaining "big tree forest" of the above Khasra numbers; that as no prohibitory order was received from the Deputy Commissioner, Be laghat tin the expiry of six months from the date of the said application, clearing of the forest was started thereafter and was completed by the middle of 1949; that on 6-1-1949, the ex-Malguzar granted tenancy rights to the petitioner in the said two fields and ten other fields fixing rent of Rs 511; that she obtained possession of the said fields from the date of the Patta and was paying the rent fixed to the State after the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated lands) Act, 1950, (No 1 of 1951), came into force that she was recorded as occupancy tenant of all lands covered by the Patta except the two Khasra numbers (711 & 12) ; that she had applied to the Nistar Officer, Balaghat, through the Collector, for being recorded an occupancy tenant or Bhumiswami of the aforesaid two Khsras but her prayer was rejected by him ; that later the Board of Revenue had remanded the case for proper determination by its order dated 24-8-1956 (Ex P-5) but her claim was again rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (vide Ex, P-6, and on appeal by the Commissioner (vide Ex. P-7), and finally, by the Board of Revenue by his aforesaid order of 14th December 1961 (vide Ex. P-8). 3. She has filed review petition taking the ground that she had sent a copy of the ex-Malguzar's application, dated 4-5-1951, and the orders passed thereon by the Deputy Commissioner to her counsel at Gwalior for being filed before the Board of Revenue but due to misapprehension of the counsel, the said papers were not filed. This reason was considered inadequate for entertaining her review petition by the Board and it was dismissed by the order, dated 27-8-1962, (Ex. P-11). 4. This reason was considered inadequate for entertaining her review petition by the Board and it was dismissed by the order, dated 27-8-1962, (Ex. P-11). 4. Shri R.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that on registration of the Patta in favour of the petitioner, here title became complete and her rights could not be affected by any provisions of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands ) Act, 1950, (hereinafter called the Act), it being an Act only to take away the proprietary rights and not to affect the tenancy rights. He further contended that under Rule 3 (2) of the Rules framed under Section 202 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, appropriator of any estate or mahal either by himself or through his agent; lessee or license, was entitled to clear the forest growth for the purpose of cultivating the land if no prohibitory order was made by the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 4 of the Rules under Section 202 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, and as no such order was passed in the present case, Shri Pandey urged, that the order passed by the Board of Revenue (Ex. P-8) was illegal and was liable to be set aside in these proceedings. 5. It is necessary to refer to the first four rules only for purposes of this petition. The first rule indicates the meaning of the term 'forest growth'. The second rule specified trees of certain species in 'forest growth', which shall not be cut without the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. The third rule is very material. It reads as under:- "3. (1) A proprietor shall not give nor shall any person take a lease of any land containing forest growth without the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. The third rule is very material. It reads as under:- "3. (1) A proprietor shall not give nor shall any person take a lease of any land containing forest growth without the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. (2) Subject to rule 2 and subject to any prohibitory order made by the Deputy Commissioner under rule 4, the proprietor of any estate or mahal may, either himself or through his tenant, lessee or licensee, cut and dispose of the forest growth on any land for the purpose of clearing it for cultivation." The 4th rule enacts that the Deputy Commissioner may prohibit the clearing of the jungle for reasons to be recorded in writing if he consider that the clearance is desirable in the public interest or it would interfere with the existing rights of user but if he sees no reason to prohibit, it is not necessary for him to pass an order in the case at an and under Rule 3, the proprietor can proceed to do the clearing as soon as the period of six months had lapsed. 6. When Rule 3 is closely scrutinized, it becomes obvious that a clear distinction has been made between the granting of a lease of the land itself and the cutting of forest growth on such land. The proprietor is prohibited from granting lease of any land containing any forest growth without the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. But, under Rule 3 (2), a proprietor who wishes to clear his forest, 'growth' may do so, if he does not violate the provision of Rule 2 which enacts that tress of certain species shall not be cut without the previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner and that he gives the requisite notice in the prescribed form to the Deputy Commissioner. 7. In our judgment the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance. The case of the petitioner falls under Rule 3 (1) and not Rule 3(2) of the Rules made under Section 202 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act. It is not even suggested that for granting the lease to the petitioner, her husband, the then proprietor of the land, had obtained any previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. The case of the petitioner falls under Rule 3 (1) and not Rule 3(2) of the Rules made under Section 202 of the C.P. Land Revenue Act. It is not even suggested that for granting the lease to the petitioner, her husband, the then proprietor of the land, had obtained any previous permission of the Deputy Commissioner. For the valid grant of a lease, according to the plain terms of rule 3 (1), it is essential that a 'lease' of any land containing forest growth must be supported by a previous permission. If previous permission is lacking, a prerequisite for the validity of the lease must be held to be wanting, and if that be so, the lease cannot be held to be valid. This is precisely the view taken by the Board of Revenue. 8. It is 'also' significant to note that in paragraph 10 of the application, the petitioner herself has stated that the clearing was completed by the middle of 1949. The patta was granted on 6-1-1949. In other words, at the time the Patta was granted to her, both the fields in question were not cleared of the tress completely and, therefore, still constituted "big tree forest". Without the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner, lease could be given only if the land did not contain forest growth but that was not the case here. 9. It was then contended by Shri Pandey that under section 45 (1) of the Act, "any person who immediately before the date of vesting was in possession of any holding as an absolute occupancy tenant or an occupancy tenant shall, on and from the date of vesting, be deemed to be a tenant of the State and shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions.........". He urged that in view of this provision, and the over-riding effect given to the provisions of the Act by section 89, the petitioner was fully protected although the lease in her favour might be in contravention of Rule 3 (1), referred to above. 10. We cannot accept this argument as correct. In our opinion, section 45 of the Act presupposes a valid tenancy. The Legislature could not have intended to confer any rights on the lessee unless he had a valid leas’. 10. We cannot accept this argument as correct. In our opinion, section 45 of the Act presupposes a valid tenancy. The Legislature could not have intended to confer any rights on the lessee unless he had a valid leas’. No rights could be acquired on the basis of a lease which offended the very conditions which were prescribed by the rule for its coming into operation. We, therefore, agree that no rights were acquired by the petitioner in the fields in question under the lease. 11. Shri Pandey emphatically relied on Rule 3 (2), quoted above. That Rule has, however, no application at all because it merely enables cutting and disposing of the forest growth on any land for the purpose of clearing it for cultivation. But, it does not authorize the proprietor to grant a lease of the land containing forest growth. 12. In the view that we have taken, the result cannot be affected even if the documents which were rejected by the Board of Revenue by its order, dated 27-9-1962, were allowed to go on record. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 75. The remaining sum of security deposited shall be refunded to the petitioner.