Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
DIVL. FOREST OFFICER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOOL CHAND SAROUGI JAIN
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/01/1971
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C. (CJ)
BENCH:
SHAH, J.C. (CJ)
HEGDE, K.S.
GROVER, A.N.
CITATION:
1971 AIR 694 1971 SCR (3) 298
1971 SCC (1) 272
CITATOR INFO :
D 1987 SC1359 (9)
ACT:
Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891, Rules made under-Rule
10 scope of.
HEADNOTE:
The Divisional Forest Officer Kamrup Division Assam invited
tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to quarry stone
for the period July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. The tender
submitted by the respondent was accepted and for the minimum
quantity of 1,25,000 c.ft. of stone allotted to the res-
pondent he was to pay Rs. 31,250/- On appeal being filed
against the order accepting the tender the Government of
Assam granted stay of the order. When three months later
the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution the respondent
declined to accept settlement of the quarry. Thereafter
tenders had to be invited again and it was only on January
10, 1964 that a settlement was made for a minimum quantity
of 5000 c.ft. for the period from January 25, 1964 to June
30, 1964 for Rs. 10,000. The Divisional Forest Officer then
sought to recover the amount of Rs. 31,250/- for which the
tender of the respondent was accepted as arrears of land
revenue in the manner provided by s. 75 of the Assam Forest
Regulation VII of 1891. The respondent moved a petition in
the High Court for an order quashing the proceeding for
recovery of the amount demanded. The High Court allowed the
petition. holding that the amount claimed was not
recoverable under the aforesaid Regulation. The State of
Assam appealed to this Court with certificate. It was
conceded that the amount was not ’recoverable under s. 75 of
the Regulation but reliance was placed on Rule 10 of the
rules made under the Regulation,
HELD The appeal must fail.
Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged
to be due for failure to carry out the obligations of the
tender by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation
1891. It is again difficult to hold that ’stone’ is forest
produce within the meaning of the Act. In any event the
Rule does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of
money. It merely imposes a limitation upon the power of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
officers of the Forest Department to grant leases in respect
of certain forest produce. The lease may not be granted
except in accordance with the general or special order of
the conservator who alone is empowered to authorise sale in
respect of such a lease. [300 E-F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 595 of 1967.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated July 28, 1966, of
the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 242 of
1964.
Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
D. N. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
299
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, C.J. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup Division,
Assam invited tenders for the purchase of monopoly rights to
quarry stone from certain areas, including Harengi Stone
Quarry Mahal, for the period July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964.
Mool Chand Sarougi-hereinafter called ’the respondent’
submitted a tender accompanied by the requisite deposit of
Rs. 100/- as earnest money, and offered the rate of Rs. 5.25
per rupee of royalty. The tender, submitted by the
respondent was accepted and for the minimum quantity of
1,25,000 c. ft. of stone allotted to the respondent out of
the quarry he was to pay Rs. 31,250/-. Intimation of
acceptance of the tender was given to the respondent on July
13, 1963.
One Baputi Ram, a member of a scheduled tribe, appealed’
against the order of the Divisional Forest Officer accepting
the, tender, to the Government of Assam and obtained a stay
order. After about three months he declined to prosecute
the appeal and’ his appeal was dismissed. The respondent
then declined to, accept the settlement of the quarry.
The Divisional Forest Officer invited fresh tenders. The
offers made were not however accepted and tenders were
invited again. On January 10, 1964 a settlement was made
for a minimum quantity of 50,000 c. ft. for the period from
January 25, 1964 to June 30, 1964 for Rs. 10,000/-
The Divisional Forest Officer, thereafter, sought to recover
the amount of Rs. 31,250/- for which the tender of the
respondent was accepted as arrears of land revenue in the
manner provided by S. 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII
of 1891. The respondent then moved a petition in the High
Court of Assam for an order quashing the proceeding for
recovery of the amount demanded. The High Court held that
the amount claimed was, not recoverable under the provisions
of the Assam Forest Regulation, VII of 1891 and passed an
order quashing the proceeding for recovery and issued a
mandamus to the Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup Division
not to proceed with the recovery. The State of Assam has
appealed to this Court with certificate granted by the High
Court.
Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 pro-
vides :
"All money, other than fines, payable to Crown
under this Regulation, or under any rule made
thereunder, or on account of the price of any
forest produce, or of expenses incurred in the
execution of this Regulation
300
in respect of any forest produce, may, if not
paid when due, be recovered under the law for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the time, being in force as if it were an
arrear of land revenue."
The amount claimed to be due from the respondent is not on
account of the price of any forest produce, or of expenses
incurred in the execution for recovery of any forest
produce. The amount is also not due in the execution of the
Regulation. So far there is common ground. It was claimed,
however, that the amount was due under rule 10 promulgated
in exercise of power under the Regulation and on that
account it was recoverable as an arrear of land revnue.
Rule 10 provides
"No lease for any fixed period giving the
right of removing India rubber, cane, kutcha
or cutch, lac, agar, ivory, or any other
forests produce shall be given otherwise than
in accordance with the general or special
orders of the Conservator who is empowered to
authorise sales in respect of such leases, by
auction, tender or any other method at such
rates as he may decide in his discretion."
The Rule in our judgment does not apply to recovery of the
amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the
obligations ,of the tender by proceedings under the Assam
Forest Regulation 1891. It is again difficult to hold that
stone is forest produce within the meaning of the Act. In
any event the Rule does not give rise to any liability to
pay a sum of money. It merely imposes a limitation upon the
power of the officers of the Forest Department to grant
leases in respect of certain forest produce. Ile lease may
not be granted except in accordance with the general or
special orders of the Conservator who alone As empowered to
authorise a sale in respect of such a lease. It is a rule
relating to the exercise of power to grant leases. The High
Court was, in our judgment, right in observing that the
amount of damages for breach of the terms of the sale notice
is not an amount due under the Regulation, or rule 10 made
thereunder.
The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with costs.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
301