MAHENDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 35,67,722/- with costs and interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the payment.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that Kutlehar was a small princely State in Kangra Hills having inter alia, 16 Tapas (Tikas) as forests, now forming part of Civil Districts of Una and Hamirpur. These forests were known as 'Kutlehar Forests' and were managed by the Raja of Kutlehar subject to the terms and conditions specified by the then Government. Such management continued generation after generation and ultimately the Plaintiff was appointed as a Forest Officer in the capacity of Superintendent of Kutlehar Forests under Section 2(2) of the Forest Act by Notification dated 1-10-1958 issued by the Government of Punjab. The management of these forests was taken over by the Department of Forest Farming and Conservation pursuant to the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Kutlehar Forest (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992 as amended by Act No. Ill of 1994 in absentia and the Plaintiff was informed on 6th and 7th of February, 1996 about it by a telegram and by sending him a copy thereof by post. Since the said forests were under the charge and management of the Plaintiff, he was competent not only to maintain and preserve the forests but was also entitled to dispose of the forest produce such as resin, timber, bamboo, bhabbar, grass etc. therefrom in accordance with the working plans prepared by the Forest Department. As per the terms and conditions of the management, the Plaintiff was entitled to retain 3/4th share of the total income derived or derivable from the said forests and l/4th share of the gross income was payable to the Government. The entire expenditure on the management and exploitation of the forests had to be incurred by the Plaintiff. However in case of departmental resin tapping since 1945, the net amount to be proportioned as aforesaid was to be worked out after deducting the expenditure incurred on extraction of resin.

(3.) Defendant No. 3 is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Himachal Pradesh and is instrumentality of the State and is incorporated under the Companies Act. The functions of Respondent No. 3 includes exploitation of forests, taking forests on lease, sale of forest produce etc. Pursuant to Clause 51 of the Memorandum and Article of Association of Defendant No. 3, the Government of Himachal Pradesh constituted a committee of Officers to determine the price and terms and conditions for the supply of resin, resin blazes, standing trees and other forest produce vide Notification dated 18-5-1974. This Notification was subsequently amended by Notification dated 28-11-1988. The said Committee, known as 'Pricing Committee' in its meeting held on 16-5-1988 decided that royalty will be charged for Kutlehar forests on the same line as fixed for Government lots. The resin tapping work is carried out as per the Technical Order. For the tapping season of 1995 when the management of the Kutlehar forests remained in the hands of the Plaintiff, he offered 1,33,591 resin blazes to Divisional Manager, H.P. Forest Corporation, Forest Working Division, Una for resin tapping vide letters dated 3-2-1995 and 10-6-1995. Defendant No. 3 took over these blazes soon thereafter and tapped the same after actual formalities like inviting tenders. As per the decision of the Pricing Committee taken on 25-4-1995, price for 1995 season was fixed at the rate of Rs. 25/- per blaze tentatively. Calculated on the basis of said price, Defendant No. 3 was to pay a sum of Rs. 34,73,366/- to the Plaintiff towards royalty of resin blazes relating to 1995 season as was admitted by Defendant No. . This amount was payable in two instalments. First instalment was to be paid on or before 15-9-1995 and the second on or before 15-12-1995. In view of the decision of the Pricing Committee taken on 12-6-1991, Defendant No. 3 was liable to pay interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum with effect from the due dates till the date of actual payment. The due amount, however, was not paid by Defendant No. 3 despite communications requesting for payment. It is further claimed that the Plaintiff had spent a huge amount on the field work, supervision, watch and ward etc. etc. of the forests out of his own pocket. In these circumstances, the denial of payment of the due amount, as aforesaid, by the Defendants is unwarranted. A notice was, therefore, served on the Defendants under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure but of no avail.