LAWS(ALL)-1972-4-25

STATE OF U P Vs. RAGHUBIR SAHAI

Decided On April 07, 1972
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Appellant
V/S
RAGHUBIR SAHAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal directed against an order dated 2nd September, 1969, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ peti tion of the respondent No. 1 (Raghubir Sahai), and directing the opposite parties not to take further steps to implement the so-called sale in favour of opposite party No. 4, Matru Khan.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this ap peal, briefly stated, are that Raghubir Sahai (respondent No. 1), being a forest contrac tor, had taken numerous contracts from the Forest Department during the year 1965-66 and subsequent years. The Deputy Conser vator of Forest, South Kheri Division, Lakhimpur Kheri, issued a notice in the year 1968 that the forest produce belonging to certain contractors, who had not paid their dues and whose timber was stacked in the Depot of one Bakhshish Ahmad contractor at Mailani railway station in that district, would be auctioned on 10th December, 1968, accordingly the wood belonging to the petitioner (respondent No. 1) was auc tioned by the Forest Officer for a sum of Rs. 3,- lOOA in favour of Matru Khan (respondent No. 2). The petitioner alleged that the sale was mala fide, that nothing was in fact due from him and that the sale could not, therefore, be given effect to, as it was void. In the coun ter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Forest Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forest, South Kheri Division, it was alleg ed that a sum of Rs. 276.28 was due from Raghubir Sahai, and another sum of Rupees 9,000 for which Raghubir Sahai had stood surety, was due from Jai Prakash, son of Raghubir Sahai. It was alleged that the sale of the wood belonging to Raghubir Sahai had been made in order to realise those dues.

(3.) THE learned Chief Standing Counsel has contended that the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the sale could not have been made directly by the District Forest Officer was not correct be cause under the provisions of Section 83 of the Indian Forest Act he was duly em powered to make such sales.