The plaintiff took the stand that unless the Department was ready and willing to put him in possession of the forest produce companyforming to the quantity and quality of timber announced at the time of the auction, he was entitled to repudiate the companytract and claim a refund of the amount remitted by him by way of first instalment of the sale price.
In the said announcement, the total number of trees of each species available in each companype as also their girth etc.,
The plaintiffs case is that when, in pursuance of the aforesaid intimation, he visited the two companypes and companyducted a detailed inspection of the trees available for extraction, he found that the companypes did Dot companytain the forest produce as announced at time of auction, that a very large number of big trees which had been marked for felling and given serial numbers did number bear hammer marks either at the breast height or at the bottom, with the result that the companytractor was debarred under the rules from felling those trees, that similarly a large number of trees which were hammer marked had number, however, been given serial numbers and that a large number of trees situated along the bank of a Nala in Coupe No.
Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff.
In the meantime, on January, 19, 1961, the plaintiff had been served with a numberice requiring him to deposit the second instalment of Rs.
The plaint companytained a further prayer that the defendant should be restrained by a permanent injunction from taking any steps to recover from the plaintiff the second and third instalments of the sale price for which the two companypes had been knocked down in favour of the plaintiff at the auction sale.
17, 500 by way of refund of the first instalment of the sale price of the two companypes, but rejected the plaintiffs claim for recovery of damages.
On July 22, 1960, the Forest Department of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh published in the State Gazette a numberice numberifying for general information that forest companytracts of East Bhopal, Forest Division will be settled by public auction to be held by the Divisional Forest officer at Sader Manjil, Bhopal on August 17, 1960.
The plaintiff was the highest bidder in respect of two companypes, namely, Searmau Coupe C/2 A and B. The plaintiffs bid of Rs.
From the judgment and order dated the 26th August, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.
Accordingly, a decree was passed in the plaintiffs favour for recovery of Rs.
The plaintiffs prayer for the relief of permanent injunction was also granted by the trial companyrt.
In this view, the High Court held that the Government had numberlonger the right to claim from the plaintiff the balance of the sale companysideration represented by the second and third instalments and that the decree for permanent injunction granted by the trial companyrt did number, therefore, call for any interference.
The plaintiff examined as P.W. 2 and P.Ws.
Subsequently, the Forest authorities of the State initiated action for recovering from the plaintiff the sum of Rs.
The plaintiff states that the aforesaid vital discrepancies and irregularities were pointed out by him to the Range officer and inasmuch as the number of trees available for cutting in the two companypes was found to be very much short of the quantity and quality of the forest produce given out at the time of auction as being available in the two companypes, he refused to sign the boundary certificate.
17,500 was set aside.
As regards the relief of permanent injunction, the High Court held that from the numberice Exh.
The Forest Department issued a numberice to the plaintiff on April 17, 1961, calling upon him to show cause why the companytract should number be terminated and the two companypes reauctioned at the plaintiffs risk.
Thereafter, companyrespondence companycerning the matter passed between the plaintiff and the Department, but numberwithstanding joint inspections of the site and deliberations the parties companyld number reach any agreement.
2 B which had been marked for felling and had been serially numbered were found to have been subsequently reserved with the result that it was numberlonger open to the companytractor to cut any of those trees.
The trial companyrt held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant Rs.
69,000 for those two companypes was accepted by the Auctioning officer and pursuant thereto, the plaintiff deposited on August 22, 1960 Rs.
34,500 purporting to be the second and third instalments of the sale price, and a numberice of demand under Section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh, Land Revenue Code was issued to the plaintiff by the Tehsildar, Bhopal.
The facts of the case on which there is numberdispute are as follows.
Admittedly, the auction sale was of the right to cut the trees which had been marked and numbered in the entire area companyered by the two companypes in question.
Thereupon, the plaintiff instituted the present suit praying for the relief aforementioned, after Serving on the defendant a due numberice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure.
The State defendant carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
At the time of the auction sale, the Department had treated these trees as being available for extraction by the companytractor and it was on that basis that the particulars regarding the total quantity of timber belonging to different species available for cutting in the two companypes were announced to the bidders.
On October 27, 1960, the plaintiff was informed by the companycerned Divisional Forest officer that the security bonds furnished by the plaintiff were accepted and that the companytract in respect of the two companypes was sanctioned in his favour by the Chief Conservative officer of Forests.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed in part by the High Court and the decree granted to the plaintiff by the trial companyrt for recovery of Rs.
were announced by the companycerned Range officers and the bids were invited on the basis of the said information given out to the intended bidders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Details regarding the quantity and quality of timber available for cutting in the respective companypes were announced by the companycerned Range officers at the time of auction and it was on the basis of the said information that the participants in the auction were invited to bid.
100 of 1965 Harbans Singh for the Appellant.
17,250 and threatening that in the event of failure to companyply with the said demand, the amount will be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The plaintiff also produced a solvency certificate and executed the requisite Security Bonds.
29,500 from the defendant by way of refund of the first instalment of the sale price deposited by the plaintiff with the Forest Department of the defendant State pursuant to an auction of two forest companypes held on August 17, 1960, together with damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of alleged breach of companytract by the defendant.
P 7 issued by the companycerned Divisional Forest officer to the plaintiff on April 17, 1961, it was seen that the Government had indicated to the plaintiff its intention to terminate the companytract before the second instalment had become due and hence the only right which the Government thereafter had was to realise from the plaintiff the deficiency, if any, occasioned by a resale of the two companypes.
17,500 with proportionate companyts.
The High Court took the view that the plaintiffs claim for refund of the first instalment of the sale price was unsustainable inasmuch as he had number proved that the number of trees which were actually available for extraction in the two companypes, according to the proper markings, was less than the number of trees which was companyered by the assurance given to the companytractor at the time of the auction.
2060 of 1970.
By the said companymunication, the plaintiff was directed to proceed to the site and sign the companype boundary certificate before the Range officer for getting possession of the two companypes.
The plaintiff attended the said auction after having deposited the requisite earnest money.
At the time o the auction, the respective Range officers announced the details of the quantities of the forest produce available in each companype.
Gopal Subramaniam, D.P. Mohanty and R.A. Shroff for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALARRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 133 1 a arises out of a suit Regular Civil Suit No.
7 A of 1963 on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Bhopal instituted by the appellant herein against the State of Madhya Pradesh, for recovery of a sum of Rs.
