STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. JHANKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the vesting of the Malguzari villages under the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary rights Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on september 28/29, 1951, the Conservator of Forests. Eastern Circle, put to auction the right to propagate and collect lac in five malguzari forests in district Balaghat. They were leased out to Jhankar Singh (Plaintiff) for Rs. 98,500/ -. The lease was from September 29, 1951 to June 30. 1954. It is not now in dispute that the plaintiff worked the contract. Although it is his case that possession was not formally given to him, he says 1hat he worked the contracts, out of a sense of duty over some of the portions of leased forests. According to him, the period for which he worked the contract was from November 24, 1951, to May 26, 1952, during which period he collected lac weighing 337 maunds worth Rs. 16,290/-, which gave him a net profit of Rs. 8087/5/6. According to the plaintiff, he did not work the contract, nor was in possession thereafter. He paid the following instalments :--29-9 rs. 1951 4,000/6-12 rs. 1951 9,334/18-12 rs. 1951 19,501/14-4 rs. 1953 10,833/total rs. 43,668/ -. Adding a sum of Rs. 100/- for coercive process the total amount paid, according to the plaintiff, is Rs. 43768/ -.

(2.) JHANKAR Singh (plaintiff) brought the suit from which this appeal arises, when coercive process was issued for the recovery of Rs. 32,834/- by the Tahsildar. His contentions in the suit were, firstly, that the Conservator of Forests had no authority to enter into the contract; that possession was not given to him and the ureas leased out were not pointed out to him; and that third persons interrupted his possession and did not allow him to work the contract. He claimed a refund of the instalments paid by him, giving a deduction of the net profit earned by him. He sought a decree for refund of Rs. 35,680/- in consequence of a declaration that the lease deeds are void. He further claimed an injunction to restrain the Naib thasildar's Revenue Court at Balaghat from realising Rs. 27,900/- or any other arrears on the basis of the aforesaid leases.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant-State, inter alia, on the ground that the leases were valid; that the plaintiff actually worked the contract; that he was liable to pay the outstanding instalments; and that he was not entitled to any refund.