JAI LAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Jai Lal a contractor, purchased certain trees in the forest In Shamalt - Deh of Village Jhajha of February 15,1958 for Rs. 1,005, when the plaintiff went to remove the trees which had been cut the Forest Ranger Chail stopped him on the ground that the trees belonged to Punjab State and the Nagar Panchayat, the vendor of the trees, had no right to sell the same without the sanction and approval of the forest authorities. The plaintiff served a notice on the Panchayat but the latter assured him that it had such a right. The plaintiff again started the work of removal of trees on February 26,1958, but the forest authorities did not permit him to do so. The said authorities ultimately on February 28, 1958. Confiscated the entire wood lying stacked on the road side. The Panchayat then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the act of the forest department which was allowed on October 16, 1958. The High Court of Punjab decided that Rule 10 framed under Section 76 of the Patiala Forest Act under which the forest authorities had prevented the plaintiff from cutting or removing the trees and confiscating the same was outside the scope of section 76 and therefore ultra vires the Act so far as third class forests were concerned. In these circumstances the plaintiff filed the present suit against the State of Punjab and Nagar Panchayat. Jhajha claiming Rs. 1,200 from the first defendant being the loss suffered by him because of the illegal acts of the forest authorities.

(2.) Did plaintiff purchase by public auction 56 Kailloon and cheel trees along with 1,000 maunds fallen wood for Rs. 1,005 on February 15, 1958 from the Nagar Panchayat Jhaija? If so, on what conditions the auction was held?

(3.) By judgment dated October 19, 1962, the trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the plaintiff but all other issues in his favour. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court by judgment dated October 10,1963, upheld the decision of the trail Court on issue No.1 but did not decide the other issues: