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