ANANT RAM NEGI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 14,64,111/- on account of damages along with interest @ 18% per annum with effect from 1-8-1997 till the realisation of the suit amount.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that in the year 1980, he purchased Deodar, Kail. Rai and Fir trees of different classes from Mania, Jhuiyan, Dhaju etc. of village Tali. Such trees were standing on land Khasra Nos. 8/1 to 8/9, situate in Chak Dabur, within Forest Range, Deha, Teh. Theog, Distt. Shimla. The trees were so purchased for the purpose of sale in accordance with law, after converting them into timber. The plaintiff got the aforesaid land demarcated from the competent revenue officials in the presence of the officials of Forest Department and thereafter the trees were marked by the Forest Officials as per the permission accorded by the Divisional Forest Officer, Shimla. The trees so purchased were felled by the plaintiff and were converted into timber, i.e. 797 scants of Deodar (volume 2269.27 cft.), 457 scants of Kail (volume 1520/29 cft.) and 584 scants of Rai (volume 1893/22 cft.). However, the timber was seized by the Forest Department on the ground that the trees were illicitly felled and cases under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, Sections 3, 4 and 16 of the H. P. Land Preservation Act were instituted against the plaintiff. On submission of the charge-sheets, such cases were registered as Criminal Cases Nos. 368/1 of 1983, titled State v. Anant Ram and others : 274 /1 of 1982 titled State v. Jhuyan and others : 365/1 of 1983 titled State v. Anant Ram and others and 1 /1 of 1984 titled State v. Anant Ram and others. In all the aforesaid cases, plaintiff and others were acquitted vide judgments dated 31-3-1986, 27-9-1985, 30-61986 and 27-9-1985. However, the trial Court ordered confiscation of the case property i.e. the seized timber in favour of the State. The plaintiff preferred revisions/appeals in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla against the orders of confiscation of timber passed by the trial Court. The Sessions Judge ordered release of the seized timber in favour of the rightful owner. The State preferred review petitions against the release order passed by the learned Sessions Judge which were dismissed. The State then preferred Revision Petitions Nos. 32, 44, 45 and 31 of 1988 against the orders of the Sessions Judge, dismissing the review petitions. The revision petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide its judgments dated 22-12-1992.

(3.) The timber which was seized and taken in possession by the Forest Department remained lying under the open sky and was stacked in a negligent manner and was thus decaying and rotting. The application was, therefore, filed in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla praying that seized timber which was deteriorating be put to auction. The application was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge and the trial Court was directed that the timber be put to auction by the Divisional Forest Officer through Forest Corporation after due publicity in accordance with law. The plaintiff was also allowed to join the auction. The compliance of this order was made time bound. The State, however, moved an application in the Court of Session Judge on 23-3-1982, claiming that the case stood admitted in the High Court and the High Court has ordered that it is ensured that the case property is not destroyed by the quarter concerned, which is required to be produced before the High Court at the time of the hearing of the appeal, whereas no such orders were passed by the High Court. However, on the application of the State, the Sessions Judge was persuaded to pass the orders that the case property be not auctioned till further orders. However, during the pendency of the revision petitions, the High Court, vide its order dated 26-8-1988, ordered that the seized timber be put to auction by defendant No. 4 in accordance with the rules and procedure within a period of six weeks from the date of order and the net sale proceeds be deposited in the Registry of the High Court within two weeks from the date of the auction. Defendant No. 4 sent a telegraphic message dated 3-11-1988 to the plaintiff to attend the auction at Parwanoo on 4-11 -1988. The telegram was received at Post Office, Kotkhai on 5-11 -1988 and was delivered to the plaintiff on 9-11-1988 and this intimation to the plaintiff was deliberately delayed to avoid affording opportunity to him to attend the auction. The plaintiff objected to the legality of the auction on the ground that he was not given timely intimation and that superior quality and grade of timber had been sold at throw away prices. It is also claimed that deliberate attempt had been made by defendant No. 4 to sell the timber in a manner so as to deprive the plaintiff of his valuable right resulting in great financial loss to him and the auction itself was deliberately delayed despite orders of the Court. The plaintiff moved an application in the High Court for release of the amount deposited by defendant No. 4 after the auction of the timber but he was directed by the High Court to approach the trial Court for the purpose. Plaintiff then moved applications Nos. 2/4, 4/4, 6/4 and 1/4 of 1994 in the trial Court which were allowed on 16-8-1994. As per the intimation given by defendant No. 4 orally, the auction price of the timber was Rs. 4,32,233/- and this amount has been received by the plaintiff. However, according to the plaintiff, the price of the seized timber in terms of the rates fixed and notified vide communication dated 29-4-1988 works out to Rs. 10,0489/-. Therefore, the plaintiff claims to be entitled to the remaining value of Rs. 5,68,256/- and interest thereon @ 18% per annum with effect from 27-10-1988 till 31-7-1997. Hence this suit for Rs. 14,64,111/-.