Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2071
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Kardak Ete, J.
Abdur Rahim – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam To Be Rep. By Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Environment And Forest Deptt. – Respondent
WP(C) 480 OF 2018
Decided On : 09-12-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. A S Tapader, Mr. D Hussain, Mr. A M Alaman, Mr. M Rahman, Ms. C M Deka
For the Respondent: GA, ASSAM, MR. R R Gogoi, SC
No dues are recoverable under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce and related rules when no agreement is executed and proper procedural norms for recovery are not followed.
Headnote:(A) Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977 - Sections 4, 16, 17, and 18 - Recovery of dues - Petitioner challenged the demand for outstanding amount as it was not liable under the Rules - No agreement executed, leading to the conclusion that there were no dues recoverable - Certificate Officer's order to recover dues set aside. (Paras 2, 13, 26, 31, and 33)
(B) Legal Procedure - The validity of recovery proceedings hinges on due process followed in ascertaining dues - Proper inquiry and adherence to the procedural steps mandated by the relevant rules are essential. (Paras 29, 31, and 32)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested a recovery order issued by the Certificate Officer for an outstanding amount citing non-execution of an agreement for the settlement of land and failing to follow procedural norms, leading to Bakijai proceedings under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913.
Findings of Court:
No proper procedure followed to ascertain due amounts against the petitioner; thus, recovery was impermissible.
Issues: Whether the amount sought was recoverable under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahals Rules, 1977, and if due process was followed in recovery proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without proper execution of an agreement and adherence to procedural norms, no valid dues could be imposed for recovery under the rules governing such sales.
Result: Impugned communication set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failure to execute agreement leads to recovery actions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on non-execution of agreement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's critical view on procedural adherence. (Para 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 30) |
| 4. conditions for valid recovery under the mahal rules. (Para 17 , 27 , 29 , 31) |
| 5. impugned communication set aside due to improper procedure. (Para 33 , 34) |
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
Heard Mr. A. S. Tapader, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel Forest Department, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. B. J. Talukdar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 6 & 7.
2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the communication dated 26.05.2025, issued by the Certificate Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, whereby an outstanding government dues amounting to Rs. 3,51,200/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty one thousand two hundred) only has been sought to be recovered from the petitioner and thereby directed to deposit the said amount, failing which the movable and immovable property of the petitioner shall be attached and warrant of arrest will be issued against him.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara put up a sale notice in the year 2003 for the Domoni River Sand Mahal for the period of 2 (two) years from 2003 to 2005. The petitioner, being eligible, participated in the sale process by submitting his tender. Having found that the petitioner has not submitted Income Tax and Sale Tax Clearance Certificate, which is a mandatory requirement under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce, Coupes and Mahal Rules, 1977 (herein after “the Mahal Rules, 1977”, in short), the Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara, directed the petitioner to submit the said certificates, which was submitted subsequently by the petitioner. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, vide letter dated 31.07.2003, informed the petitioner that the Domini River Sand Mahal for 2003 to 2005 is settled with him at his offered value of Rs. 2,81,000/- (Rupees two lakhs eighty one thousand) only for 2 (two) years against 5000 cubic metres from the date of issuance of the letter and directed the petitioner to deposit the security amount and 1st Kist of the Mahal within 7 (seven) days and to sign the agreement and in the event of failure to deposit the security money and Kist, Mahal will be put to Risk Sale at the risk of the petitioner as per the condition of relevant sale notice.
4. On receipt of the settlement letter, the petitioner submitted representation dated 30.10.2003 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Guwahati, praying for reduction of the quantity by 50% as in the nearest 2 Mahals, the quantity does not exceeds 1000 Cubic Metre annually and the other Mahals were settled with the less quantity, but in respect of Domini Sand Mahal, the quantity is 2500 Cubic Metre annually. The petitioner neither deposited the security amount and kist nor signed the agreement.
5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Goalpara, vide letter dated 15.11.2003 to the Conservator of Forests, Central Assam Circle, has sought for his advice as to whether the Mahal should be put to risk sale again or should be put to fresh sale. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer has issued the risk sale notice for settlement of the said Sand Mahal, however, no tender was received against risk sale notice, even after repeated notices vide dated 22.01.2024, 19.04.2024 & 23.07.2024 against the quantity of 5000 cubic metre. The petitioner submitted various representations to the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial) Assam for reducing the quantity of Mahal. However, the said request for reduction of the quantity was neither rejected nor accepted.
6. Pursuant to the representation dated 05.08.2004 submitted by the petitioner, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment & Forest Department, vide letter dated 11.08.2004, asked the Divis
