A. Raghavir, C. J.: - The partnership firm of Chunilal Dharamchand is petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 2 is one of the partners of the firm. The firm is a forest contractor and in this case the firm seeks to quash a notice published on November 18, 1982 by the Divisional Forest Officer to sell timber under Khellong Forest Division, Bhalukpung In the notice logs are described and tenders are called for to sell them. The logs are mentioned for sale as at Lot No. 1 of 1982 at Sessa (near Durga Mandir). Lot No. 2 of 1982-83 at Sessa (Below Durga Mandir), Lot No. 3 of 1982-83 at Sessa (Below P. C. No. 15), Lot No. 4 or 1982-83 at Sessa (Below P. C. No. 14), Leg No. 5 of 1982-83 at Sessa (Below P. C. No. 15), Lot No. 6 of 1982-83 at Sessa (Below P. C. No. 11,12), Lot No. 7 of 1982-83 at Sessa (Below P. C. No. 7, 8, 10), Lot No. 8 of 1982-83 at Sessa (near P. C. No. 20), Lot No. 9 of 1982-83 at Sessa (near P. C. No. 21, 22), Lot No. 10 of 1982-83 at Sessa (near coupe No. 22). Lot No. 11 of 1982-53 at Sessa (in Nalah near camp), Lot No. 12 of 1982-83 at Sessa (In convey Ground), Logs near coupes Nos. 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of 1978-79. In the description of logs sizes, of species measurements and other particulars are set out in 9 Schedule to the notice. The firm contends the logs belonged to them and the forest officials are illegally selling logs without any ostensible right. 2. The firm traces its title to July 9, 1979 whereby Divisional Forest Officer, Khelleng Bhalukpung settled coupes Nos. 6 to 20 except coupe No. 18. The firm on settlement of coupes paid Rs. 4. 29,277/- towards consideration. The time for felling trees as per the settlement was fixed to 15. 1. 1980. The period was extended on payment of money from time to time. The last extension of such extension expired on March 31, 1982. 2A. The firm during the subsistance of settlement worked out 14 coupes, fell the marked trees (except 180 trees). 29,277/- towards consideration. The time for felling trees as per the settlement was fixed to 15. 1. 1980. The period was extended on payment of money from time to time. The last extension of such extension expired on March 31, 1982. 2A. The firm during the subsistance of settlement worked out 14 coupes, fell the marked trees (except 180 trees). The logs were removed after obtaining transit passes issued by the Forest Department and stocked at the places which is particularised in the schedule to the impugned notice. But due to disturbed conditions the highways were blockaded. There was scarcity of diesel and petrol and for other veriegated reasons, the logs were not transported out of Arunachal Pradesh. At the request of the firm the forest authorities allowed two deopts near the Coup area at Sessa for stocking logs. The firm alleges they were not granted transit passes for removing the logs oat of Arunachal Pradesh and that according to the firm explains why they are found stocked without getting them out of Aruachal Pradesh. However it is asserted by the firm they own the logs and the title vests in them. Their title to the logs is traceable to the settlement specified earlier. 3. The Rules entitled Transit Rules were framed under Section 37 and 40 of the Assam Forest Regulation. These rules are applicable to the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The firm complains the forest officials have unlawfully not allowed them to be trespassed. The Forest Department cannot sell the marked logs without any ostensible title in favour of the State. The firm asserted they are the owners of logs particularised in the impagned notice the Stats authorities are therefore to be interdicted not to sell the logs. 4 We see in the instant case, there is a counter filed by Sri Lila Kanta Phukan, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhalukpung, Arunacbal Pradesh. Most of the averments in the counter refer to payment of consideration by the firm after settlement of the coupes. In para 7 of the counter it is asserted the Forest officials have not done anything out side the terms of the settlement. The Divisional Forest Officer is it is asserted can sell the logs after March 31, 1982 i. e. after expiration of the terms of settlement. In para 7 of the counter it is asserted the Forest officials have not done anything out side the terms of the settlement. The Divisional Forest Officer is it is asserted can sell the logs after March 31, 1982 i. e. after expiration of the terms of settlement. In the counter the title to 180 is not at issue but the firm in the instant petition does not lay any claim for the 180 trees. The question for consideration is whether the firm is entitled to remove the marked logs 'worked out' from the coupes which were settled in favour of the firm. 5. We are satisfied due to circumstance beyond the control of the firm the logs from Arunachal Pradesh could not be removed. The firm however it is shown felled the marked trees, cut the timber into pieces and logs are marked. The firm also paid the consideration of the settlement. We therefore hold logs belonged to the firm. The firm is entitled to remove the logs from Arunachal Pradesh. 6. It is true validity of depots is expired after six months but that circumstance does not divest the title of the firm. The State without right title cannot sell logs as its property. We bold refusal of the transit passes to the firm for removing the logs in law also cannot be sustained. 7. We, therefore, hold the firm is entitled to remove the pieces marked logs in the impugned tender notice. The State is bound to issue transit passes for the removal of logs if applications are made under the Transit rules. While forest officials accord transit permit they may ascertain whether or not logs are marked and owned by the firm. The impugned tender notice dated November 18, 1982 for all the aforesaid reasons is quashed. The Civil Rule is allowed as indicated above. No costs.