KURIAKOSE K V Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants challenge the common judgment and decrees of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda dated 09/04/1992 in OS Nos. 144/86 and 145/86. AS 675/94 is filed by the plaintiff in OS 145/86 while AS 748/1994 is filed by the plaintiff in OS 144/86. Since both the appeals arise from the common judgment of the Court below, they are considered together.

(2.) IN both the suits the plaintiffs challenge the action of the respondents, cancelling an auction that was confirmed in their favour. The appellants had bid the right to collect and remove forest growth from the SA Coupe No: III of Chimmony area of Chalakkudy Forest Division. Pursuant to auction notification dated 05/10/1982 the right to collect and remove forest growth from Chimney SA Coupe No: III was conducted. The appellants were the successful bidders in respect of different Sub Coups. The appellant in AS 675/94 was the successful bidder in respect of Sub Coupe I and XVII while the appellant in AS 748/1994 was the successful bidder in respect of Sub Coupe No: VI. In the case of Sub Coupe Nos: I and XVII, the bid amounts were Rs. 7,20,780/- and Rs. 6,03,000/- respectively while the bid amount in respect of Sub Coupe No: VI was Rs. 6 lakhs. An Amount of Rs. 25,000/- had been deposited by way of security before the appellants had participated in the auction. The auction was conducted on 11/11/1982 and the confirmation of the same was duly communicated to the appellants. Thereafter, by letter dated 06/12/1982 they were called upon to remit the balance value to make up the 1/3rd sale price and sales tax as per chalan enclosed. They were also directed to furnish security for the balance amount. They were directed to execute separate agreements on stamp paper before 20/12/1982. It was stated in the notice that non execution of the agreement would result in the authority concerned revoking the auction in their favour as per the provisions contained in clause IV of the auction notice and reauctioning of the Coupe at the risk and loss of the appellants. However, the appellants could not execute the agreement because in the meantime they received notices from the Secretary, Forest Contractor's Staff Union informing them that the "mesthiris" for executing the work should be engaged only from those who were doing the said work previously in that area. They were also informed that they shall recruit labourers for the work from the local area itself. In other words they were told by the Union that they would not be able to carry on the work with their own workmen.

(3.) IN view of the above situation, separate representations were submitted by the appellants to the authorities requesting for extension of time to execute the agreement by six months and also seeking permission to exploit the Coupe at the original rate itself or in the alternative to refund the security amount. However, the appellants allege that the officials were not willing to take into account the practical difficulties that were brought to their notice or to redress their grievances. According to the appellants the agreements could not be executed due to reasons beyond their control. In the above circumstances, the Divisional Forest Officer cancelled the auction sale that was confirmed in favour of the appellants and their security amounts were forfeited. They were also informed that the Coupe would be reauctioned at their risk and loss. Accordingly, a reauction was conducted and since the works were confirmed at amounts considerably lower than the rates quoted by them, the difference was sought to be recovered from the appellants, invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The said action was challenged by the appellants in two separate writ petitions, OP No. 3238 of 1983 and OP No. 3237 of 1983. The amount that is sought to be recovered from the appellant in AS No. 748 of 1994 is Rs. 1,98,151. 20, while the amount that is sought to be recovered from the appellant in AS No. 675 of 1994 is Rs. 1,34,154/ -.