Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Shiv Dayal and J. S. Verma, JJ.
STATE OF M.P. - Appellant
Versus
JHANKAR SINGH - Respondents
First Appeal 109 Of 1960
Decided On : 11/03/1972
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 299(1) - CONTRACTS - EXECUTION BY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS - VALIDITY - FOREST DEPARTMENT - TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT OF FOREST AREAS - PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY - CONTRACT ACT, SECTION 70 - REFUND OF INSTALMENTS - CONDITIONS - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF - BEST EVIDENCE - PRODUCTION - PRESUMPTION AGAINST PARTY WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS - REGISTRATION ACT, SECTION 90 - LEASE GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT - COMPULSORY REGISTRATION NOT REQUIRED - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 107 - NOT APPLICABLE - GOVERNMENT GRANTS ACT, 1895, SECTION 2.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Jhankar Singh, leased five malguzari forests from the Conservator of Forests for the purpose of propagating and collecting lac. He paid certain instalments of the lease amount but later stopped paying, claiming that the contracts were void and that he was entitled to a refund of the instalments paid. The State, on the other hand, contended that the contracts were valid and that the plaintiff was liable to pay the outstanding instalments.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the contracts were valid and that the Conservator of Forests was authorized to execute them on behalf of the Governor. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the instalments paid, as he had failed to prove the amount of lac he had extracted from the forests.
Issues: 1. Whether the contracts executed by the Conservator of Forests were valid. 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the instalments paid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the contracts were valid as they were executed by the Conservator of Forests, who was authorized to do so by the Governor under Article 299(1) of the Constitution. The court also held that the transfer of management of the forest areas to the Forest Department was proved by the evidence on record and that the presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act applied. 2. The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the instalments paid as he had failed to prove the amount of lac he had extracted from the forests. The court relied on Section 70 of the Contract Act, which imposes a liability on a person who enjoys the benefit of something done or delivered by another person to make compensation or restore the thing. The court held that the plaintiff had not discharged the burden of proof on him to prove the amount of lac extracted and that the presumption against a party withholding documents applied.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) ON the vesting of the Malguzari villages under the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary rights Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on september 28/29, 1951, the Conservator of Forests. Eastern Circle, put to auction the right to propagate and collect lac in five malguzari forests in district Balaghat. They were leased out to Jhankar Singh (Plaintiff) for Rs. 98,500/ -. The lease was from September 29, 1951 to June 30. 1954. It is not now in dispute that the plaintiff worked the contract. Although it is his case that possession was not formally given to him, he says 1hat he worked the contracts, out of a sense of duty over some of the portions of leased forests. According to him, the period for which he worked the contract was from November 24, 1951, to May 26, 1952, during which period he collected lac weighing 337 maunds worth Rs. 16,290/-, which gave him a net profit of Rs. 8087/5/6. According to the plaintiff, he did not work the contract, nor was in possession thereafter. He paid the following instalments :--29-9 rs. 1951 4,000/6-12 rs. 1951 9,334/18-12 rs. 1951 19,501/14-4 rs. 1953 10,833/total rs. 43,668/ -. Adding a sum of Rs. 100/- for coercive process the total amount paid, according to the plaintiff, is Rs. 43768/ -.
( 2 ) JHANKAR Singh (plaintiff) brought the suit from which this appeal arises, when coercive process was issued for the recovery of Rs. 32,834/- by the Tahsildar. His contentions in the suit were, firstly, that the Conservator of Forests had no authority to enter into the contract; that possession was not given to him and the ureas leased out were not pointed out to him; and that third persons interrupted his possession and did not allow him to work the contract. He claimed a refund of the instalments paid by him, giving a deduction of the net profit earned by him. He sought a decree for refund of Rs. 35,680/- in consequence of a declaration that the lease deeds are void. He further claimed an injunction to restrain the Naib thasildar's Revenue Court at Balaghat from realising Rs. 27,900/- or any other arrears on the basis of the aforesaid leases.
( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant-State, inter alia, on the ground that the leases were valid; that the plaintiff actually worked the contract; that he was liable to pay the outstanding instalments; and that he was not entitled to any refund.
( 4 ) THE trial Judge found that the leases were illegal and void; that the contracts were not complete; that they were invalid for want of registration; that the Forest department was bound to preserve and protect lac produce after it had been auctioned; that the plaintiff was entitled to refund of Rs. 35,680/-; that the plaintiff had a net gain of Rs. 9642/7/-; and that the State was not entitled to recover the remaining instalments. (Contd. on Col. 2) In the result, he declared that the four lease deeds were void and after deducting the net profit of Rs. 8087/5/6 out of the instalments paid, i. e. Rs. 43,768/-, passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the refund of Rs. 35,680/- together with interest at 6 per cent. He further issued an injunction permanently restraining the State from realising rs. 27,900/- or any rental arrears through the process of the Naib-Tahsildar's revenue Court. Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, this appeal was preferred by the State. 5. It is first contended by the learned Deputy Advocate general that there was no defect in the contracts which were signed by the conservator of Forests on behalf of the Governor. These contracts were executed in the name of the Governor and were signed by the Conservator of Forests. The question is whether there was compliance with the requirements of Article 299 (1)of the Constitution. All contracts made in exercise of the executive power of the state have to be made by the Governor and have to be executed on behalf of the governor "by such persons and in such manner as he may direct or autho
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
