MANGAT RAM CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased forest trees standing in lot No. 6/64-65 in the Mashobra Range of Simla Forest Division. On the said purchase he was liable to pay Rs. 1,43,000/- to the Government. It seems that the petitioner was not able to pay the entire amount immediately, and, therefore, the Forest Department appropriated timber of the value of Rs. 40,106.88 against the liability. The remaining timber was not released by the Department for disposal by the petitioner. The Forest Department put the remaining timber to auction, and it fetched a sum of Rs. 5,500/- only. The petitioner requested the Divisional Forest Officer to permit him to pay Rs. 5,500/- and to release the timber in his favour. But the Forest Department directed that the timber be re-auctioned, and the re- auction held in May, 1968 yielded Rs. 8,340/-, The petitioner says that by this time against the total timber now appropriated by it against the petitioner's liability the Forest Department adjusted Rs. 65,328/- to the credit of the petitioner. It appears from the official record placed before me by Shri Hari Krishan, learned counsel for the respondents, that the Forest Department made successive demands on the petitioner for payment of the remaining liability, and ultimately in 1971 a demand was made for payment of Rs. 1,18,115.65. The notice did not specify the details of the demand. The petitioner filed an objection on June 8, 1971 to the demand stating, inter alia, that he was entitled to an opportunity to show that he was not liable to pay the amount demanded. The respondents, however, commenced recovery proceedings against the petitioner for realisation of the amount of Rs. 1,18,115.65. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the demand.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A number of contentions have been raised by the petitioner, but it seems to be that the petition can be disposed of on a short ground. When the notice demanding Rs. 1,18,115.65 was served on the petitioner the details of the demand were never disclosed to him. In the result all that he could do was to file a "blind" objection to the validity of demand. The petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to show that the amount demanded from him was not payable and should not have been demanded. It appears from the break-up of that amount that the following items were included :-

(3.) It is urged for the respondents that the petitioner should have paid at least the amount admitted as royalty and the recovery is good to that extent. The contention is without force. When a single indivisible amount is made the subject of a demand, the demand must be recovered either in its entirety or not at all. In the absence of statutory power to that effect, it is not for the recovering authority to decide which Part of the demand is good and which bad.