STATE OF BIHAR Vs. DUKHULAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State of Bihar (defendant No. 2) arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 34,650 either from defendant No. 1 (Raja Bahadur Girwar Prasad Narayan Singh of Ranka) or, in the alternative, from defendant No. 2. Before the vesting pf the estates and tenures in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 defendant No. 1 owned a large estate in the district of Palamau and within that estate he owned and possessed a large area of jungles outside the area demarcated under the provisions of the Bihar Private Protected Forcstg Act. The Plaintiff, a contractor, hailing from the district of Murshidabad in West Bengal, secured from the Raja, under a registered deed, dated the 12th April, 1952, a license to collect Biri or Kendu leaves from these jungles for a Period of three years commencing with 1952 on payment of Rs. 22,500 as the first year's premium and of a further sum of Rs. 7,500 to be held as security by the Raja for being set off ultimately towards the premium for the third year. The premium agreed to be paid for each year "was Rs. 22,500. After payment of security money and the first year's premium, the plaintiff began collecting the biri leaves from the jungles from the year 1952, the collection season commencing from the beginning of May and lasting for about a month and a half. In the middle of December 1952 the plaintiff was served with a notice issued from the office of the Additional Collector of Palamau by which he was asked to show cause why the lease or license granted to him by defendant No. 1 should not be cancelled and why he should not be made to pay Rs. 22,500 to the State of Bihar for the 1952 season, because the estate of the Raja had vested in the State under a notification dated the 14th November, 1951. The plaintiff showed cause, but the Additional Collector rejected it on the 31st January 1953 and referred the matter to the Government of Bihar for a final decision. But before the decision of the Government could be received, the collection season of 1951 arrived and by a letter of the Additional Collector dated the 28th April 1953 the plaintiff was allowed to collect the biri leaves in that season. By a notice dated the 2nd May 1953 the Additional Collector informed the plaintiff that, unless he were ready to pay the Government. Rs. 22,500 for the 1952 season and another sum of Rs 22,500 for the 1953 season and unless he were ready to make a deposit of an additional sum of Rs. 7500 as security, the lease for collecting leaves from the said jungles would be given to some other person. The plaintiff thereupon paid the two sums of Rs. 22,500 and deposited the security money at required by the Additional Collector. He, however, withdrew subsequently the security deposit of Rs. 7,500.

(2.) On the refusal of the Raja to refund the security money as well as the premium which he had paid for 1952 season, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 22,500 paid by him twice over for the 1952 season from such of the two defendants as may be held liable. He has also claimed refund of the security money Rs. 7,500 from the Raja and claimed in the alltertive sum of Rs. 10,125 as compensation from the State of Bihar for the loss he sufferer on account of the fact that the State did not allow him to collect) the biri leaves in the 1954 season. Thus, thc plaintiff have claimed Rs. 30,000 plus interest on Its. 4,650, from defendant No. 1, or, in the alternative, the principal amount of Rs. 22,500 with interest on Rs. 2,025 plus a. compensation of Ra 10,125 from defendant No. 2.

(3.) Both the defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff through separate written statements. Defendant No. 1 contested, inter alia, that he was not bound to make the refund' whatsoever, as the latter had, before taking the lease, made a full investigation into the title of this defendant to the jungles in question and as the relevant notification vesting his estate in the State of Bihar was never published in any newspaper and no notice of such vesting was ever sent to him, as per registered post, as required under thc provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is further said that this defendant executed the lease in favour of the plaintiff for collection of the biri leaves in good faith, as, in spite of the publication cf the notification in the Gazette on the 14th November 1951, the State of Bihar did not take possession of his estate before the 13th June 1952 and did not cease to realise from the defendant the land revenue and cess for his entire estate for the kists following the said notification. It is, therefore, contended that, if the plaintiff, with full knowledge of all the facts, chose to pay the premium over again to the State of Bihar, the loss incurred thereon should be borne by the plaintiff alone. The last assertion was that, as fifty per cent of the yield of the leaves to the plaintiff came from this defendant's bakasht and zirat land, which never vested in the State of Bihar, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover even the security money from him inasmuch as he had collected biri leaves from such lands in the second year as well without paying any royalty or premium to this defendant for the leaves collected for 1953.