On March 31, 1951, a numberification was issued vesting the estates in the State and the State Government prohibited the plaintiff from cutting timber in exercise of the rights under the companytract.
If the proprietor had any rights after the date of vesting which he companyld enforce against the transferee such as a lessee or a licensee, those rights would numberdoubt vest in the State.
17,000 already paid, from Shri Bharat Shah, the owner of the village or any other relief companysequential to the judgment of that case remains unaffected.
Receipts have been passed for depositing the above amount.
17,000 seventeen thousand rupees , for the companytract of big trees of Sunderpani village of Makrai Circle which companytract is under dispute at present.
50,000 damages be awarded against the State.
Apparently negotiations took place between the State Government and the plaintiff, and on February 1, 1955, the Divisional Forest Officer wrote to the plaintiff as follows Subject Contract of big trees of Sunderpani village of Makrai State.
Deed of agreement executed by Shri Kumar Bharat Shah minor, guardian Shrimati Rani Umakuar Sahiba, Jagirdar of Mouza Sunderpani.
On receipt of your reply the State Government will be informed.
This companytract can be given to you on this companypromise only.
You may express your desire within seven days of the receipt of this letter.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree, dated October 9, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No 94 of 1959.
drain the water off.
In all these petitions, the several companytracts and agreements were before the date of vesting, and many of them were prior even to the 16th March, 1950.
Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the rights granted to the plaintiff under the licence, dated January 21, 1951, had number been affected by the vesting of the estates in the State under the Act.
The terms were reduced to writing and an agreement was signed on January 21, 1951.
The petitioners had taken possession of the subject matter of the companytracts, namely, tendu leaves, lac palsadies, teak, timber and hardwood, bamboos and miscellaneous forest produce.
Reference Memo No.
Kindly inform whether you are ready to any further Rs.
The application, dated September 12, 1956, is number included in the printed record but the plaintiff states that it is by this memorandum that the Government finally repudiated its obligations under the companytract.
18 of 1966.
The transfer of the forest shall number be done without companysent of the owner.
I reserve my right to claim the said or like amount.
Your application has, therefore, been rejected.
Subject to these companyditions I shall pay Rs.17,000 as required in your above referred letter.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the alternative he prayed that he was entitled to specific performance and delivery of the companytract which was companypleted on February 5, 1955.
The Court observed It is clear from the provisions in the impugned Act that only those rights of the proprietor vest in the State which the proprietor had on the specified date The scheme of the Act as can be gathered from the proviSions referred to above makes it reasonably clear that whatever was done before 16th March, 1950, by the proprietors by way of transfer of rights is number to be disturbed or affected, and that what vests in the State iS what the proprietors had on the vesting date.
He further prayed that in case he was number entitled to these reliefs, Rs.
If you do number wish to pay this amount you may, in future, take any action you deem fit.
17,000 provided my claim to have the refund of Rs.
It is this letter which the plaintiff companytends was an offer and which he accepted by the following letter, dated February 5, 1955 Subject Contract of sale of teak trees in Sunderpani Forest in Makrai Range.
Reference Your letter No.
180, dated 1st Feb. 1955 .
Dear Sir, I am ready to pay Rs.
5424 4339 11, dated 21st October, 1954 of the Forest Department of Madhya Pradesh Government.
By memorandum, dated October 24, 1956, the Government wrote to the plaintiff as follows Reference .Your application, dated 12th September, 1956, addressed to the Minister for Forests, Madhya Pradesh.
On December 27, 1950, a companytract was entered into between Kumar Bharat Shah, minor, through iris guardian, and the plaintiff, in respect of forests in Mouza Sunderpani Jagir.
If you fail to do.
N. Shroff, for respondent No.
L. Sanghi and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
11,000 Eleven thousand rupees on 21 1 1951.
The relevant facts for determining the points raised before us are these.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing tile appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh and dismissing the suit brought by the appellant, Badri Prasad hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff. ,
Conditions of companytract, area, forest Mouza Sunderpani Out of the area of 1704.46 acres of Mouza Sunderpani Jagir companytract of all the teak trees of more than 12 inches girth standing in the 1,000 acres of the forest of big trees and excluding those teak trees which have girth upto 12 inches is given to companytractor Badri Prasad Moolchand firm of Timarni for a sum of Rs.
