STATE OF MADRAS Vs. R. RANGANATHAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Madras represented by the Collector of Thanjavur, the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 57 of 1967 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, is the appellant. The plaintiff -respondent brought an action for declaration that he was entitled to the sum of Rupees 23,500.48, which was held in deposit in O.S. No. 90 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram, and also for the return of the sum of Rs. 1,420 together with interest which, according to the plaintiff, was payable and refundable to him and to which the defendants, namely, the State of Madras, which is the 1st defendant, and the District Forest Officer, Thanjavur, who was the 2nd defendant, had no right, title or interest. The circumstances under which the suit was filed may be stated thus.

(2.) UNDER Ex. B -1 dated 16 -7 -1963 a Forest notification was issued by the District Forest Officer, Thanjavur, wherein the lease of the right to cut and remove the Casuarina trees in Sodikudy, which lay in two different coupes in the village of Sodikudy. Sodiakudy Taluk, was advertised to be sold in public auction. It is common ground that there were two lots which were so advertised for sale. But the auction could not take place as notified, since there were no bidders. Again a fresh notification, but a similar one was issued under Ex. A -1 dated 5 -11 -1963. The notification itself made it clear that the said right to remove the standing growth from the coupes will be sold in public auction by the District Forest Officer, Thanjavur, or by an Officer depuled for the purpose. There were several conditions which were fully and clearly reduced to writing in the said notification and the notification also attracted an agreement a sample form of which was admittedly exhibited at the tune of sale. Under the notification it was made clear that the conditions of the sale notice or the notification would form part and parcel of the above agreement to be executed. We shall refer to the conditions of the sale in detail as and when it becomes necessary. As already stated, the sale was held in two lots and on 18 -11 -1963 which was the date of auction held in pursuance of Ex. A -1, the plaintiff became the highest bidder for both the lots, he having bid for the first lot at Rs. 6,850 and for the second lot at Rs. 2,575. He was also called upon to give security as per the conditions of sale, and accordingly the plaintiff paid towards lot No. 1 a sum of Rs. 1,030 and towards lot No. 2 a sum of Rs. 390, making in all a sum of Rs. 1,420 towards security after he had been declared the highest bidder. As is usual, the District Forest Officer through his Range Officer executed receipts Exs. A -2, A -3 and A -4, receipting the above amounts from the plaintiff. In fact, under Ex. B -3, which is the list showing the bids made by the bidders at the said auction, it is made clear that the sale was knocked down in the name of the plaintiff and that besides the sale amount, security deposit in respect of the sale of the coupes in two lots was also receipted by one of the officers of the Forest Department. The District Forest Officer certified that the sale was conducted by him in person and in the presence of certain witnesses and the plaintiff in turn agreed to obey by the conditions of sale as notified in the Forest notification. On the next day the Collector of the District received information about the above auction and in fact, one of the co -bidders as well as a member of the Legislative Council of the State of Tamil Nadu complained that the bid secured by the District Forest Officer was too low and that there were parties who were prepared to pay higher amounts if a re -auction is undertaken. Such complaints were received by the Collector under Exs. B -4 and B -5. The Collector of the District forwarded the said complaints under Ex. B -6 to the District Forest Officer or the Divisional Forest Officer, Thanjavur for remarks. As by then no order of confirmation of the bid was made by the District Forest Officer and apparently, because the Collector of the District also intervened on complaints made by third parties, the District Forest Officer, under Ex. B -12 equivalent to Ex. A -6, invited tenders for the removal of the Casuarina growth in the above coupes. The tender notice also contained a condition that the tender is subject to acceptance or rejection by the Divisional Forest Officer or Conservator of Forests whose decision shall be final and binding on the tenderers. Soon thereafter the District Forest Officer, under Ex. B -8, issued proceedings ordering refund of the sums paid by the plaintiff and as enumerated above. To continue the narrative, third parties tendered pursuant to Ex. A -6 in respect of the Casuarina growth in the two coupes as above.

(3.) ON the above pleadings the following issues were framed :