Forest Officer v. Mool Chand Sarougi Jain
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- J. C. Shah
- K. S. Hegde
- A. N. Grover
- Judgment Date
- 1971-01-06
- Court Decision / Holding
- The appeal must fail. The Court held that Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out the obligations of the tender under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891. It also held that, even if stone were considered, Rule 10 does not create a monetary liability, and that the lease-regulation framework does not render the claimed sum recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. The High Court’s decision quashing the recovery was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal dismissed with costs.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Forest Officer
Respondents
- Mool Chand Sarougi Jain
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Naunit Lal
Counsels for Respondents
- • D. N. Mukherjee
Case Synopsis & Summary
The Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup Division, Assam, invited tenders for monopoly rights to quarry stone from Harengi Stone Quarry Mahal for the period July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. The respondent, Mool Chand Sarougi Jain, submitted a tender for the minimum quantity of 1,25,000 cubic feet at Rs. 5.25 per rupee of royalty, with a total bid of Rs. 31,250. The tender was accepted and intimation of acceptance was issued on July 13, 1963. An appeal by Baputi Ram, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, obtained a stay from the Government, but after about three months the stay was vacated and the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution; the respondent declined to accept settlement of the quarry. Fresh tenders were invited and on January 10, 1964 a settlement was made for a minimum quantity of 50,000 cubic feet from January 25 to June 30, 1964 for Rs. 10,000. The Divisional Forest Officer then sought to recover Rs. 31,250 as arrears of land revenue under Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. The High Court quashed the recovery, holding the amount not recoverable under the Regulation, and the State appealed with a certificate. The case centers on whether the amount is recoverable under Section 75 or Rule 10 (rules under the Regulation) and whether stone qualifies as forest produce. The Supreme Court ultimately held that Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount and that the recovery argument fails; the appeal is dismissed.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The appellants argued that Section 75 contemplates recovery of money payable under the Regulation or its rules, and that upon failure to carry out tender obligations, the amount could be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Rule 10, which operates under the Regulation to govern such recoveries and to regulate leasing of certain forest produce. They contended that the tender breach and the amount due arise within the scheme of the Regulation and its rules, and that Rule 10 supports recoverability as an arrear of land revenue.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents contended that Section 75 does not apply to the present context and that Rule 10 cannot create a monetary liability for failure to fulfill tender obligations. They argued that stone is not forest produce within the meaning of the Act, and even if Rule 10 is applicable, it does not give rise to a monetary liability; the amount claimed is not due under the Regulation or under its rules, and the High Court correctly quashed the recovery.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Forest Officer v. Mool Chand Sarougi Jain and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.