COLLECTOR KALAHANDI Vs. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of the defendants is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nawapara, Kalahandi decreeing the respondent's suit for Rs. 5,30,210/- with interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till payment.

(2.) The respondent filed the suit for a direction to the appellants to pay the loss allegedly sustained by him in respect of the standing trees and felled trees (unpassed) numbering 253 and 727 respectively, with interest @12% per annum. Case of the plaintiff-respondent is that a sale notice was published by the defendant No. 2 in the Orissa Gazette dated 1-8-1980 for sale of timber, firewood and other minor forest produce of it's Division by auction sale which was scheduled to be held at Divisional Officer, Khariar on 18-8-80 and 19-8-80. In response to the sale notice plaintiff-respondent took part in the auction and being the highest bidder in respect of Gandhamardhan S.W.C. No. 11, Lot No. 11, Divisional Lot No. 10 of 1980-81 and the bid was knocked in his favour for a consideration of Rs. 4,01,000/-. The aforesaid sale of the lot was ratified by the Government on 20-11-1980. The plaintiff-respondent paid the entire consideration money in between 31-3-1981 and 30-4-1982 as well as compensation of Rs. 12,434 on 16-3-1983, 21-2-1983 and 4-3-1983. The working period of the Coupe was from 28-11-1980 to 21-12-1982. During the said period the plaintiff-respondent could not work out the entire coupe and applied for extension of time and time was extended for a period of three months from 31-3-1983 to 30-6-1983. During the extended period also the plaintiff-respondent could not complete the work of the coupe and as on 20-10-1983 there were 253 numbers of standing trees and 727 felled (unpassed) trees to be removed. After 30-6-1983 i.e. expiry of the extended period the Range Officer of defendant No. 2 took over charge of the standing and felled trees of the above coupe from the plaintiff-respondent who also returned the conversion register and permit to the office of defendant No. 2. Since the plaintiff could not complete the work within the extended period also he applied for another extension which was allowed for a period of two months in respect of the Divisional Lot No. 10 of 1980-81 of similar Division. After receipt of the order of extension from the State Government the plaintiff-respondent deposited the requisite fees for such extension, but he was not allowed to work. Finding no way the plaintiff-respondent filed a writ application before this Court in O.J.C. No. 2857/1985. Since there was a talk of compromise with the defendants the said writ application was withdrawn with permission of the Court on 24=-3-1987. After withdrawal of the writ application negotiation was held but it failed and the plaintiff again approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 2343 of 1987 and in the said writ application this Court directed the defendant No. 2 and other Government officials to allow the plaintiff to work out the forest coupe. Even after the order was passed by this Court, the plaintiff was not allowed to work as the standing trees and felled trees as they were available on 20-10-1983 had already been removed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the loss sustained by him in respect of the standing trees as well as felled trees along with interest.

(3.) Defendants-appellants in their written statement did not dispute the averments of the plaintiff that he had been awarded the work of carrying out the coupe but disputed the initial period of operation and according to the defendants-appellants the original period of contract was from 28-11-1980 to 30-11-1982. It was further contended on behalf of the defendants-appellants that as per Rule 7 of the Orissa Forest Contract Rules, 1966 time shall be the essence of contract and on completion of the specified period the plaintiff's right under the contract ceases and any forest produce not removed by him during the period of contract shall become the absolute property of the Government. After completion of the extended period on 30-6-1983, the Forestor, Padampur inspected the coupe on 20-10-83 and drew up final inspection report No. 45 dated 20-10-83 showing balance of 253 standing trees and 727 felled (unpassed) trees in the coupe. It is also stated in the written statement that after completion of the extended period the plaintiff-respondent had returned the coupe permit and conversion register. So far as the second extension period is concerned, it is the case of the defendants-appellants that application of the plaintiff-respondent for the second extension was forwarded by the defendant No. 2 to the Conservator of Forests, Koraput circle on 11-4-1984 and the latter recommended the same to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Orissa on 19-4-1984 with copy to the State Government and while the matter was under correspondence the State Government granted two months extension of time. On receipt of such order the Chief Conservator of Forests sought clarification from the State Government in his letter dated 24-6-85 and thereupon the State Government issued a stay order on 5-7-85 and subsequently superseded the order issued and rejected the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of extension of time. Further stand of the defendants-appellant of the written statement is that in O.J.C. No. 2343/87 this Court directed that the plaintiff should be allowed to work out the coupe, subject to the condition that the coupe has not been worked out or settled in the meantime with some other persons rendering it impossible for the plaintiff to work out the coupe and the trees which were then marked for felling and removal by the plaintiff are identifiable. After disposal of the writ application when inspection was made it was found that the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the standing trees and felled trees were no more available in the coupe. This fact was also intimated to this Court by defendant No. 2 by way of an affidavit dated 12-2-1988.