IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 400 of 2009 Reserved on: 29.08.2023 Date of Decision: 27.09.2023 Amar Singh & others .... Appellants Versus State of H.P. & others. ....Respondents.

Coram o Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellants : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment h& decree dated 14.05.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, gMandi, vide which the appeal filed by the respondents i(defendants before the learned Trial Court) was partly allowed.

(Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiffs filed a Civil Suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking recovery of ₹2,80,000/- as damages

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

suffered by the plaintiffs for non-operation of the slate quarry till 02.05.2005 and refund of security amount of ₹ 56,250/-. It was pleaded that plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and Shiv Dass, father of plaintiff no. 3 & husband of plaintiff no. 4, had taken the slate quarry Silhol situated at Bada Tehsil Chachiot from the Mining Department in an open auction held on 24 .08.1999 at Mandi for five years commencing from 0o3.05.2000 till 02.05.2005 @ ₹2,25,000/- per year. They deposited ₹ 56,250/- as a security amount on the date of the auction. The plaintiffs started operating the slate quarry on 03.05.2000. The boundary of the Demarcated Prootected Forest (DPF), Suhalu touches the quarry. The ForCest Department forcibly stopped the operation of the quarry on 15.05.2001. The plaintiffs wrote letters to the defendants about the obstructions caused by the Forest Department. Defendant No.3 wrote a letter to DFO, Mandi on 17.09.2002 seeking clarification regarding the operation of the quarry. Defendant No. 3 again sent a letter on 05.08.2003 to DFO to issue the No Objection Certificate. The plaintiffs waited for the response of the defendants and the Forest Department till 02.05.2005; however, no response was received. The plaintiffs suffered a loss of ₹3,50,000/-@₹1,00,000/- per year. They had paid ₹50,000/- for the purchase of the tools and ₹ 50,000/-

advance to the labourers. The plaintiffs had already paid the royalty to the defendants till 08.05.2001 but they could not operate the quarry; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by defendants no. 1 to 3 by filing a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability and locus standi, the suit being bad for mis-joinder and non-j oinder of necessary parties, the plaintiffs being estoppedr by their acts and conduct to file the present suit and the suit having not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction. The contents of the plaint were admitted to the extent that the quarry was allotted to the plaint iffs for 05 years w.e.f. 03.05.2000 till 02.05.2005. It was admitted that there is a forest land adjoining the quarry and that plaintiffs had written a letter on 20.08.2001 regarding the objection raised by the Forest Department. It was asserted that the contract was cancelled on 03.09.2001 for non-payment of instalments as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The plaintiffs paid instalments till 03.08.2001 and the contract was cancelled due to the non-payment of the 7^th instalment. The defendant no. 3 found a portion of the quarry suitable for mining and requested the Forest Department to issue a No-Objection Certificate to protect the interest of the State Exchequer. The plaintiffs had not suffered any damages; hence, the suit was filed to seek the relief mentioned above.

4. No replication was filed.

5. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on

06.03