Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. Agarwal and K. M. Dayal, JJ.
VIRENDRA KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. 3499 Of 1977
Decided On : 07/30/1979
FOREST ACT - SECTION 82, 83 - PRICE - DAMAGES - RECOVERY AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE - INTERPRETATION - DISTINCTION - APPLICABILITY - U. P. PUBLIC MONEYS (RECOVERY OF DUES) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 3.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a forest contractor, purchased three lots of timber from the State of U. P. He failed to pay the installments as agreed, leading to the rescission of the sale agreements for two lots and the detention of materials for the third lot. The Forest Department initiated recovery proceedings for the balance of the sale price and the deficit incurred on resale, treating them as arrears of land revenue under the U. P. Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1975.
Finding of the Court:
The court distinguished between 'price' and 'damages' in the context of forest dues. It held that the recovery of the balance of the sale price for the third lot, which had not been resold, could be categorized as 'price' and thus recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act. However, the recovery of the deficit incurred on the resale of the other two lots was considered 'damages' and not recoverable as 'price' under Section 82.
Issues: 1. Whether the deficit incurred on the resale of forest produce could be recovered as 'price' under Section 82 of the Forest Act. 2. Whether the recovery proceedings for the balance of the sale price could be initiated despite the Forest Department exercising its power to detain the forest produce under Section 83 of the Forest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 82 of the Forest Act and held that it allows for the recovery of 'price' as arrears of land revenue, but not 'damages'. It distinguished between the two concepts, explaining that 'price' is the sum of money at which an article is sold, while 'damages' are pecuniary compensation for loss or injury sustained due to a breach of contract or tortious act. 2. The court clarified that Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act are not mutually exclusive and can be applied simultaneously. Section 83 creates a charge on forest produce for the amount due, while Section 82 provides for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. The court rejected the argument that the State Government could only resort to one mode of recovery.
Final Decision: The court quashed the recovery proceedings to the extent of Rs. 30,343.69, which represented the deficit incurred on the resale of the two lots. However, it upheld the recovery proceedings for the balance of the sale price, amounting to Rs. 52,665.15, for the third lot.
( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner prays for quashing the citation dated 30th August, 1977 and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 and 6 not to realise the forest-dues from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue,
( 2 ) THE facts relevant for our purposes are as follows :-The petitioner is a forest Contractor. At an auction held on August 20, 1968, the petitioner purchased lot No. 8 of the Pithoragarh Forest Division for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/ -. The sale money was to be paid by the petitioner in two instalments. These instalments were:-
1. 1st instalment Rs. 36,000/- on 1-11-1969. 2. 2nd instalment Rs. 72,000/- on 1-4-1970.
( 3 ) THE petitioner did not pay the instalments as mentioned above. Instead, he paid the amount in small bits. The total amount which had been paid by him by March, 1975 was Rs. 55,334. 85p. After deducting the aforesaid amount from the total sum payable, the amount which remained to be paid was Rs. 52,665. 15 p.
( 4 ) AFTER the auction had been finalised in favour of the petitioner, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the State of U. P. and as per the agreement and terms of sale, the petitioner was entitled to export all the purchased materials in proportion to the payment made by him from time to time. Since the petitioner failed to make the payment, in spite of various reminders, sent to him, the material not exported by him was detained by the Forest Department. Apart from detaining the materials, the Forest Department also started proceedings for recovery of Rupees 52,665. 15 p. Consequently, a recovery certificate of the said amount was sent to the collector, Nainital for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue, under the U. P. Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act as amended by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1975. Through this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of recovery proceedings of the aforesaid amount.
( 5 ) THE petitioner also purchased two more lots of timber being lots Nos. 22 and 16. These 2 lots were of the forest and were in respect of forest situated in west Almorah Forest Division, ranikhet, district Nainital. Lot No. 22 was sold on 23rd November, 1967 for Rs. 71,000/-and lot no. 16 was sold on 21-8-1968 for Rs. 1,56,000/- As per the terms of the sale and the agreement between the petitioner and the forest department the payment of sale money was to be made as under:-
Lot No. 22/67-68 1st instalment Rs. 23,700 on 1-10-1969 and instalment Rs. 47,400 on 1-2-1970 total Rs. 71,100/-Lot No. 16/68-69 1st instalment Rs. 52,000/- on 1-11-1969 2nd instalment Rs. 1,04,000/- on 1-4-70 total Rs. 1,56,000/ -.
( 6 ) THE petitioner did not pay the instalments as mentioned above. Consequently, the agreements of the sale of the aforesaid lots viz. , 22 and 16 were rescinded and the aforesaid two lots were put to sale. The two lots were sold for Rs. 43,200/- in an auction held on 25-2-1975. The balance recoverable in respect of these two lots was Rupees 30,343. 69 p. The recovery of this amount was also started by way of arrears of land revenue. A recovery certificate of the amount of Rs. 30,343. 69p. was sent to the Collector, Nainital. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid recovery as well.
( 7 ) FROM the facts stated above, it would be seen that the total amount which is being recovered for the nonpayment of dues of the three lots. , viz. 8, 16 and 22 is Rs. 83008. 84p.
( 8 ) THE main ground of challenge was that since the deficit on resale could not be termed as price, the recovery of the same under Section 82 of the Forest Act was illegal. The petitioners case was that the real character of the amount was "damages" and as under Section 82 only "price" can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
( 9 ) FOR appreciating the point it would be relevant to refer to Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act. Section 82 provides that :-
"all money payable to the Government und
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
