Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a tender process for monopoly rights to quarry stone from certain areas including Harengi Stone Quarry Mahal in Assam. The Divisional Forest Officer, Kamrup Division, invited tenders for the period July 1, 1963 to June 30, 1964. Mool Chand Sarougi Jain, the respondent, submitted a tender with an earnest deposit of Rs 100 and offered a rate of Rs 5.25 per rupee of royalty. His tender was accepted, and for the minimum quantity of 1,25,000 c.ft. of stone allotted, he was required to pay Rs 31,250. Acceptance was intimated on July 13, 1963. However, one Baputi Ram, a member of a scheduled tribe, appealed against the acceptance to the Government of Assam and obtained a stay order. After about three months, Baputi Ram declined to prosecute the appeal and it was dismissed. The respondent then declined to accept the settlement of the quarry. Fresh tenders were invited; initial offers were not 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. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer sought to recover Rs 31,250 from the respondent, claiming it as arrears of land revenue under Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Assam seeking to quash the recovery proceeding. The High Court held that the amount claimed was not recoverable under the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891, quashed the recovery proceeding, and issued a mandamus directing the Divisional Forest Officer not to proceed with recovery. The State of Assam appealed to the Supreme Court with a certificate granted by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was conceded that the amount was not recoverable directly under Section 75 of the Regulation, but the State relied on Rule 10 of the rules made under the Regulation. The court examined Section 75, which allows recovery of money payable to the Crown under the Regulation, under any rule made thereunder, on account of the price of any forest produce, or expenses incurred in execution of the Regulation in respect of forest produce. The court found that the amount claimed was not on account of price of forest produce or expenses, and not due in execution of the Regulation. The court then analysed Rule 10, which provides that no lease for any fixed period giving the right of removing specified forest produce or any other forest 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 rates he may decide. The court held that Rule 10 does not apply to recovery of the amount alleged to be due for failure to carry out tender obligations by proceedings under the Assam Forest Regulation 1891. It further observed that it is difficult to hold that stone is forest produce within the meaning of the Act. In any event, the court ruled that Rule 10 does not give rise to any liability to pay a sum of money; it merely imposes a limitation upon the power of forest officers to grant leases. A lease may not be granted except in accordance with the conservator's orders. The court concluded 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. Accordingly, the appeal failed and was dismissed with costs, upholding the High Court's decision that the amount was not recoverable.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Recovery of Amounts - Section 75, Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 - Scope of Recovery - Amount claimed for failure to carry out tender obligations after acceptance not on account of price of forest produce or expenses incurred in execution of Regulation, hence not recoverable under Section 75 as arrears of land revenue. Held that Section 75 permits recovery only of money payable under Regulation or rules or on account of price or expenses, not damages for breach of tender terms (Paras 1-2). B) Forest Law - Lease Granting Powers - Rule 10, Rules under Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 - Nature of Rule - Rule 10 does not create monetary liability; it only limits officers' power to grant leases and requires conservator's order. Therefore no sum due under Rule 10 for breach of tender. Held Rule 10 inapplicable to recovery proceedings; stone is difficult to hold as forest produce under Act (Paras 1-2). C) Forest Law - Definition of Forest Produce - Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 - Stone as Forest Produce - The court observed it is difficult to hold that stone is forest produce within meaning of the Act; this reinforced non-applicability of recovery under forest regulations. Held stone not clearly forest produce (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amount of Rs 31,250 claimed from the respondent for breach of tender obligations was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 read with Rule 10 made thereunder; and whether Rule 10 creates any monetary liability.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with costs. The amount claimed for breach of tender obligations was not recoverable under Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 read with Rule 10; Rule 10 does not create monetary liability, and stone is not clearly forest produce. The High Court's order quashing recovery and issuing mandamus was upheld.
Law Points
- Rule 10 of rules under Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 does not apply to recovery of amount for failure to carry out tender obligations
- Rule 10 does not give rise to liability to pay sum
- Rule 10 merely imposes limitation on power to grant leases
- stone is difficult to hold as forest produce
- damages for breach of sale notice not amount due under Regulation or Rule 10
- Section 75 recovery limited to money payable under Regulation/rules/price/expenses
