Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P. K. GOSWAMI, C.J. AND BAHARUL ISLAM, JJ.
Praneswar Das and another -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
Civil Rules Nos. 726 of 1969 and 206 of 1968
Decided On : 05-07-1972
FORESTRY - SETTLEMENT OF FOREST COUPES AND MAHALS BY TENDER SYSTEM RULES, 1967 - RULE 18 - APPLICABILITY - AMOUNT DUE UNDER THE RULES - INTERPRETATION - RECOVERY OF DUES - BAKIJAI PROCEEDINGS - JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the validity of Bakijai proceedings initiated against them for recovery of differences in sale value of forest coupes and mahals on resale, claiming that the mode of recovery by recourse to Bakijai proceedings under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation was invalid and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 18 of the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967 (the Rules) was not applicable to the cases where resale took place after the promulgation of the Rules, as the amount claimed was not "due under these rules" but was in the nature of damages for breach of contract.
Issues: Whether Rule 18 of the Rules could be invoked to recover the difference in sale value on resale of forest coupes and mahals, where the resale took place after the enforcement of the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted Rule 18 of the Rules strictly and held that it only applied to amounts due under the Rules themselves, and not to amounts claimed as damages for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the scheme of recovery under the Rules, as set out in Rules 14 to 17, did not contemplate liability or payability to the Government on account of damages for breach of contract.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the Bakijai proceedings initiated against the petitioners, holding that they were without jurisdiction and invalid.
GOSWAMI, C. J. :- This judgment will govern both the above Civil Rules. Civil Rule No. 206/68, although listed with the other case from 21st June, 1972 onwards, was heard separately on 27th and 28th June, 1972.
2. The facts of Civil Rule No. 726 of 1969 are as follows: In pursuance of a sale notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills, inviting tenders for settlement of Darugiri Reserve Coupe No. 1 of 1961-62, the petitioner submitted the tender on 16th May, 1966 offering Rs. 78,315/- per year. Under Clause 3 (a) of the sale notice, the Governor of Assam is the competent authority to pass the order of settlement. After some correspondence, the Divisional Forest Officer, on 27th January, 1967, informed the petitioner that the coupe was finally settled with him at his offer. He was asked by the same letter to produce documentary evidence in support of financial soundness and was directed to attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills, for signing the agreement. For some reason or other the agreement was not signed although there is some controversy regarding the reasons given by the petitioner for not signing the same. The petitioner ultimately made a prayer to the Divisional Forest Officer to extend the period and also to allow him to deposit the security money in October, 1967, when only, according to him, operation in the forest could be started. The Divisional Forest Officer did not pay heed to his request and ordered resale of the coupe on 13th May, 1967. The resale took place accordingly on 13th May, 1967 and the tender of one Satish Chandra Thakuria offering a sum of Rs. 62.575/- was accepted by the Governor who rejected the first tender offering an amount of Rs. 78.315/-. The petitioner was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer by letter dated 31-3-1969 demanding difference of sale value being a sum of Rs. 15.543/- from the petitioner as a result of the resale at his risk "for non-implementation of clause of the Sale Notice dated 29-4-1966". The notice closed with a threat :
"Please therefore arrange payment of the amount on or before 15-4-1969. Otherwise the same will be recovered from you as an arrear of land revenue as per Forest Law".
A Bakijai case No. 51/68-69 was started for recovery of the above amount and the petitioner was given time by the Bakijai Officer till 20th August 1969. Meanwhile, the petitioner obtained the present Rule on 11th August, 1969 and the proceedings in the Bakijai case were stayed.
3. We may also state the facts of Civil Rule No. 206/68 : The Divisional Forest Officer Dibrugarh Division, (Respondent No. 3), made an advertisement on 19th June, 1965 inviting tenders for a licence for exclusive right to exploit canes from Mahal No 6 for the period commencing from 1-9-1965 to 31-8-1968. The petitioner-company, through its Director, submitted a tender offering Rs. 2,51,701/- for the entire period. The work order was given by the Respondent No. 3 on 12th October, 1965. The petitioner deposited Rs. 12,685/- as security and Rs. 62,926/- towards the first kist which was due on 1st July, 1966. Although it is asserted to the contrary in the petition, an agreement was executed by the parties on 12th October, 1965. It does not however, appear to be registered. After some correspondence with the Government, the petitioner, on 27th June, 1966 wrote to the Government intimating that
"We shall close all operations in the mahal as from 10-7-1966 and that we shall not be liable for the produce of the mahal or in any matter connected to or arising out of the said mahal and that the Government is at full liberty to place the mahal for sale at the Government risk and responsibility", (Annexure C to the petition).
The petitioner was informed by the D. F. O. on 13-12-1966 (Annexure D) as follows :
".........please arrange to pay the due 2nd kist amounting to Rs. 62,925.00 of the mahal by 20-12-1966 else the mahal will be resold at your risk as regards loss to Government and
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
