Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
K. LAHIRI AND B. L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Bejiram Ingty -Appellant
Versus
State of Assam and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No.235 of 1975
Decided On : 07-09-1981
FOREST PRODUCE - STONE - NOT A FOREST PRODUCE - STONE QUARRY SETTLEMENT - NOT RECOVERABLE AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE - BAKIJAI PROCEEDING - NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Tribe, submitted a tender for the sale of stones from a stone mahal for a period of two years. He deposited the first installment and security amount but could extract only a fraction of the stones due to numerous difficulties. He requested an extension of the period of operation and leave to deposit the outstanding installments. The authorities, however, put the mahal to resale at the petitioner's risk. But in view of the difficulties encountered by the petitioner, none came forward to submit any tender. The petitioner was then informed that the quarry could not be resold at his risk and was called upon to deposit the due installments, failing which action would be taken to resell the mahal at his risk. The petitioner expressed his inability to deposit any extra amount and prayed that he might be given an opportunity to remove stones to the extent of the amount he had already deposited. The respondents started Bakijai proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of the outstanding installments and an additional amount as proportionate bid value for the extension of the settlement period.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that stone is not a forest produce within the meaning of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, or the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967. Therefore, the provisions of the Regulation and the Rules relating to the recovery of money due to the Government for forest produce are not applicable to the settlement of stone quarries. The court further held that the arrears of installments are not an amount due under the Regulation or the Rules and cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The court also held that the Bakijai proceeding initiated by the respondents against the petitioner was not maintainable and was without any authority of law.
Issues: 1. Whether stone is a forest produce within the meaning of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, and the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules, 1967? 2. Whether the arrears of installments for a stone quarry settlement are an amount due under the Regulation or the Rules and can be recovered as arrears of land revenue? 3. Whether the Bakijai proceeding initiated by the respondents against the petitioner was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer v. Mool Chand Saraugi, AIR 1971 SC 694, which held that it is doubtful whether stone is a forest produce. The court also noted that the definition of forest produce in the Regulation has not been amended to include stone, despite the Supreme Court's decision. 2. The court relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Praneswar Das v. State of Assam, AIR 1973 Gauhati 51, which held that arrears of installments for a stone quarry settlement are not an amount due under the Regulation or the Rules and cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 3. The court held that the Bakijai proceeding initiated by the respondents against the petitioner was not maintainable because there was no provision in the Regulation or the Rules to treat arrears of installments as dues under the Rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the Bakijai proceeding initiated by the respondents against the petitioner.
LAHIRI, J. :- Three trite questions have come up for solution in the Civil Rule under a different setting. The questions to be resolved are:- (1) Whether stone is a "Forest produce" within the meaning of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (Regulation VII of 1891), or under the Assam Settlement of Forest Coupes and Mahals by Tender System Rules 1967, hereinafter called "the Rules"?, (2) whether the petitioner is obliged to pay any amount to the State who had offered extension Of the settlement/lease but the petitioner refused to accept? Whether the mere offer of extension by the State which was not accepted by the petitioner created any "contract" on the basis of which the State could proceed to recover the amount of Rupees 9387.75, allegedly for breach of contract, and. recover the amount in Revenue Recovery proceedingand and (3) Whether a proceeding for recovery of the said amount can be taken by the respondents under the Assam Land Revenue Regulation. 1898, Or "the Rule" framed thereunder, "in other words can the State proceed to recover an amount due on account of non-payment of installments of a stone mahal by way of a Bakijai Proceeding under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, or "the Rules" framed thereunder"? These are the main questions posed in this writ proceeding.
2. The Divisional Forest Officer, South Kamrup Division, for short "the D.F.O." invited tenders for sale of stones from Kanilipara Stone Mahal for the period commencing from November, 1, 1969 to October 31, 1971. Shri Bejiram Ingty, the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Tribe submitted tender offering Rs. 37,551/- for 3000 cubic meters of stone. The offer was accepted and the petitioner was informed to deposit the first Kist money of Rs. 4,700/- as well as the security amount of Rs. 990/-. He was also asked to deposit seven other kists of Rs. 4.693/- each on alternate month. In all the petitioner deposited Rs. 23,472/- but could extract only 813 cubic metres of stone. As the petitioner could not extract stones due to numerous difficulties he made a representation to the then Minister-in-charge for extension of the period of operation up to 31-10-1972. He also prayed for leave to deposit the 6th, 7th and 8th kists on 21-1-71, 1-3-71 and 1-5-71, respectively. The authorities, however, put the Mahal to resale at, the risk of the petitioner. But in view of the difficulties which the petitioner had encountered, none came forward to submit any tender. There-upon, the petitioner was informed by two notices that the quarry could not be resold at his risk as no tender was received; the petitioner was called upon to deposit the due kists otherwise in accordance with clause 13 of the sale notice the settlement will be cancelled. Moreover, if any loss is incurred by the Government, in accordance with Cl.14 of the sale notice, the same will be realised as arrears of land revenue. "In reply, the petitioner prayed to the authorities to reduce the quantity of the mahal to 1000 cubic meters and to cause refund of the excess amount to the petitioner. Thereafter, "the D.F.O." informed that the Government had granted extension of the working period of the stone mahal for six months "on payment of proportionate bid value equivalent to 25% of the settled value of the mahal amounting to Rs. 9,387.75 and on payment of the outstanding dues of Rs. 14,079.00 on account of the 6th, 7th and 8th kists during the period of extension all terms and conditions of the agreement would remain in force." on failure of payment of the dues within the stipulated time, it was. stated, action would be taken to resell the mahal at his risk. To this the petitioner expressed his inability to deposit any extra amount and prayed that he might be given opportunity to remove stones to the extent of the amount he had already deposited. The petitioner also informed "The D.F.O." that he had extracted stones worth Rs. 8,000/- only but had already paid a sum of Rs. 23,472/-. However, in the mea
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
