Quantification of damages by a competent Civil Court is necessary before unilateral recovery of claims based on alleged contractual breaches.

CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, admittedly, entered into a contract with the 1st respondent-Divisional forest Officer, Mangalore Division, mangalore. Under the terms of contract, he was required to supply 30,000 B. G. Units of wooden sleepers from the Government forest. The contract was executed subject to certain extension of time granted and agreed to by the parties to the contract. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice on 11-6-1971 more than three years after the contract had come to an end, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,568/ -. He replied to the show cause notice stating that he was not liable to pay any amount, for what had happened, that too, after a lapse of three years when it was not possible to state that the tree felled had not been marked for felling in respect of which the amount was claimed as damages. That apparently was not accepted by the 1st respondent. Therefore, a notice was issued as per Annexure-E to the petition by the special Tahsildar for P. U. C. and miscellaneous Recoveries, Bangalore, the 2nd respondent herein.

( 2 ) THAT is a notice issued under Rule 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. Aggrieved by the same, he has challenged legality of the notice issued.

( 3 ) THE facts themselves are not in dispute. The only contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader resisting the prayer for quashing the recovery notice at Annexure-E is that in terms of the contract, the petitioner is liable to make good the loss caused to the Government by felling trees which were not marked for felling. A true copy of the agreement produced by the petitioner is at Annexure-A to the petition. Reliance was placed by the department on the clause providing for either of the parties to the contract indemnifying the other for any loss caused by the successors in interest or employees of the contracting parties. That does not give any right to the Divisional Forest Officer to recover unilaterally, a claim based on the alleged illegal cutting of standing timber without having the same quantified by the competent Civil Court as damages.

( 4 ) THAT was the law laid down by this court in a Full Bench decision which has since been affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v rameshwara RICE MILLS, thirthahalli, AIR 1987 SC 1359, 1987 Kantlj.

( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, the recovery notice is without the authority of law and ex facie illegal and therefore it is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Annexure-E is quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition Allowed.

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document