PRANESWAR DAS AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will govern both the above Civil Rules. Civil Rule No. 206/68, although listed with the other case from 21st June. 1972 onwards, was heard separately on 27th and 28Ih June. 1972.

(2.) THE facts of Civil Rule No. 726 of 1969 are as follows: In pursuance of a sale notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills, inviting tenders for settlement of Darugiri Reserve Coupe No. 1 of 1961 -62, the petitioner submitted the tender on 16th May, 1966 offering Rs. 78,315/ - per year. Under Clause 3 (a) of the sale notice, the Governor of Assam is the competent authority to pass the order of settlement. After some correspondence, the Divisional Forest Officer, on 27th January, 1967, informed the petitioner that the coupe was finally settled with him at his offer. He was asked by the same letter to produce documentary evidence in support of financial soundness and was directed to attend the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Garo Hills, for signing the agreement. For some reason or other, the agreement was not signed although there is some controversy regarding the reasons given by the petitioner for not signing the same. The petitioner ultimately made a prayer to the Divisional Forest Officer to extend the period and also to allow him to deposit the security money in October. 1967, when only, according to him. operation in the forest could be started. The Divisional Forest Officer did not pay heed to his request and ordered resale of the coupe on 13th May, 1967. The resale took place accordingly on 13th May, 1967 and the tender of one Satish Chandra Thakuria offering a sum of Rs. 62,575/ - was accepted by the Governor who rejected the first tender offering an amount of Rs. 78,315/ - The petitioner was informed by the Divisional Forest Officer by letter dated 31 -3 -1969 demanding difference of sale value being a sum of Rs. 15,543/ - from the petitioner as a result of the resale at 'his risk "for non -implementation of clause of the Sale Notice dated 29 -4 -1966". The notice closed with a threat:

(3.) ON 20th April, 1972, on the application of the petitioner, the Court ordered the State of Meghalaya to be impleaded as a party as the area of operation has since been included in Meghalaya.