JOGENDRA LAL SAHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying, that the order incorporated in Annexure 11, dated the 23rd July 1969, and a notice, dated the 4th November 1969 (Annexure 12), issued under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, may be quashed. THE further prayer is that, the connected certificate proceeding pending against the writ petitioner may also be quashed. Annexure 11 Was a letter issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, claiming Rs. 70,713 from the petitioner, said to have been due in consequence of the settlement by auction of lot No. 102 for collecting Kendu leaves for the years 1967 to 1970 for Rs. 1,25,000. It was state-fed in that letter that, the petitioner had paid the dues for the year 1967-68, but he had not deposited the second instalment of Rs. 41,667 due by the 15th January 1969. THEreafter, the letter gave further details of accounting, stating, that, the price for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 was due amounting to Rs. 83,333 and after giving certain deductions Rs. 70,713 was claimed. A deduction of Rs. 10,420 was given on account of the security deposit and a credit of Rs. 2,200 was given for a re-sale. Naturally, by Annexure 12 a notice claiming Rupees 70.717.50 paise (inclusive of Rs. 4.50 paise for cost) was sent.

(2.) THE relevant facts may now be stated. On 21st February, 1968 the right to collect Kendu leaves for a period of three years from 1967 to 1970 was sold by auction to the petitioner, who was the highest bidder. THE total amount for which this auction was made for three years was Rs. 1,25,000 payable in three instalments. THE first instalment of Rs. 41,667 was payable within twenty days from the date of receipt of the ratification letter. THE second amount of Rs. 41.667 was payable on or before the 15th January 1969. THE third amount of Rs 41,666 was payable on or before the 15th January 1970. THE petitioner had deposited the first amount of Rupees 41,667 for the dues of the year 1967-68 and an agreement had been entered into on the same day, that is 21st February 1968, which document was signed by the writ petitioner. In the original writ application, the petitioner tried to make out a case that, at no stage, acceptance of the three years' settlement by the authorities had been communicated to the petitioner, but this stand has now been abandoned, in view of the counter-affidavit filed in the case, along with the ennexures appended thereto. In the writ application, it is accepted that the petitioner had been given possession of the settled lot and he had duly commenced the working, although some vague allegations were made to the effect, that, the petitioner had found, that, the area of the lot settled with him had not been defined, nor was delivery of possession made over to him by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka. This is clear from the allegation in the writ application to the effect, that, the petitioner was not able to work out properly the contract for the period ending June 1968 because of some agitations of the paharias and indifference of the local Forest authorities to help the petitioner. It appears, that, on 17th December 1968 the petitioner had received a demand from the Divisional Forest Officer. Dumka, saving that, in accordance with the agreement entered into the sale price for the second year had to be deposited by the 15th January 1969 and for the third year by the 15th January 1970 and these two amounts of Rs. 41,667 and Rs. 41,666 may be deposited in due course. THEreafter, it appears, that, communications had followed between the petitioner and the authorities in question, without the petitioner obtaining any relief. It is alleged in the writ application, that, the petitioner had made certain offers by a representation dated the 24th April 1969, A copy of this representation has been given as Annexure 8 and the last portion of the representation was in the following words :

(3.) THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the certificate proceeding for the realisation of dues from the petitioner, if any, was not maintainable. Our attention has been drawn to Schedule I of the Bihar; and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and it is argued, that, in spite of the fact, that, there was a written instrument between the parties for payment of the dues for the settlement, dated the 21st February 1968, paragraph 3 of this Schedule will be attracted, by virtue of which. Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 will be applicable. It is contended, that, if Section 82 is applicable, then, the only remedy that was available for the realisation of the balance due if any was a regular suit and a proceeding under the Public Demands Recovery Act could not have been instituted. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, paragraph 3 of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914, and Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, are quoted below : Paragraph 3 of Schedule I of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.