Judgement ORDER:- The petitioner which is an Association in the name and style of Phek District Timber Association has impugned Government Notification dated 29 June, 1989 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 33(2)(h) by which rates of royalty leviable on all classes of forest produce removed from any forest in Nagaland has been prescribed. The main contention of the petitioner Association is that timbers / logs or any forest produce for that matter extracted from village lands or individual lands (forest) no royalty can be imposed under the aforesaid provision of law. Therefore, realisation of royalty in terms of the above notification is illegal and untenable in law. Obviously the above notification was made under the provision of Nagaland Forest Act of 1968. It is contended that the provisions of this Act would govern only Government Reserved Forest and would not include private lands whatsover. It is further contended that under the garb of the above notification royalty has been levied from forest produce of individuals as well as of village of the Phek District. Since the above provision does not govern levy of royalty from such private lands, the petitioner prays that the impugned notification may be quashed. 2. Government has filed counter-affidavit. Sub-para (5) of para. 10 of the Government affidavit states as under:- " While notifying the royalty rate, the State should have quoted that Act 3 of 1974, Chapter IV, Section 29, sub-section (2) and Clause C, but inadvertently Act 3 of 1968 Section 33(h) was quoted. This will be corrected immediately." Para. 13 of Government counter-affidavit states as under; " That with regard to the statements made in paragraphs 12 and 3 of the writ petition, the deponent respectfully submits that the said sections will be corrected as Sec. 29,(2),(X) of Nagaland Jhumland Act. It was a mistake not corrected at the time of the notification." It is stated at the Bar today that no further Notification has been made in terms of the statement made in paragraph 13 of the counter. In this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner Association submits that the realisation of royalty has not been made legally and under any provisions of law for the time being in force in the State of Nagaland. In this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner Association submits that the realisation of royalty has not been made legally and under any provisions of law for the time being in force in the State of Nagaland. It is also submitted that in view of the statement made by the Government in the affidavit that the impugned Notification was not validly made, there is no reason why the petitioner Association should be made to suffer under a wrongly notified Govt. order. It is submitted that on its own admission Government ought to have cancelled or withdrawn the impugned Notification. It is stated that no such step has been taken. No further Notification or Corrigendum has been issued in regard to the realisation of royalty in question. 3. After hearing Mr. S. Risom, learned counsel for the petitioner Association and Mr. I. Jamir, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate and on perusal of Govt. affidavit, I am of the view that the impugned Notification has no validity. Hence it is liable to be quashed. Unless there is a valid Notification under relevant provisions of law by which the Government is authorised to levy royalty, no royalty as such could have been imposed on the basis of the impugned Notification. 4. In the result, this petition is allowed. Impugned Notification dated 29 June, 1989 issued by the Government is quashed. This petition is accordingly disposed of. I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.