MOHAMMAD YUSUF Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated: The petitioner had taken a contract in respect of forest produce of Dhanta Jagir Forest from the former Jagirdar of Dhanta in Sirohi District on July 9, 1954. After the Dhanta Jagir was resumed by the State, an agreement was executed by the petitioner with the Rajasthan State Government which allowed the petitioner to avail of the aforesaid contract. A working scheme for the forest of Dhanta was prepared by the Divisional Forest Officer Sirohi but it was found that 702 acres of forest area which was allowed to the petitioner did not fall within the Dhanta forest area. This led to further negotiations between the parties and by the order dated February 28, 1970 the State Government decided that since 702 acres of forest land did not pertain to the Dhanta forest area, the petitioner may be allowed another area of forest land from the Mahila Gor Bir and the area of the said forest land which may be allowed to the petitioner in exchange may be determined by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi on the basis of the relative density of the two forests. The report of the Divisional Forest Officer dated April 4, 1970 (see page 101 of the record of this case) shows that although average density of Dhanta forest was 1.5 the average density of Mahila Gor Bir was 6. Thus the latter forest was found to be four times more dense than the earlier forest and as such he recommended that the petitioner may be allowed 175 acres of forest land in the Mahila Gor Bir as equivalent to and in exchange of 702 acres of forest land of the Dhanta forest area earlier allotted to the petitioner. The Chief Conservator of Forests forwarded the aforesaid recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer to the State Government vide his letter dated April 21, 1970. As no final decision was taken in the matter by the State Government, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities that till the decision was taken finally in the matter the petitioner may be allowed to carry on his operations in 100 acres of forest land. This he was permitted to do vide agreement dated May 11, 1970. Ultimately the State Government vide its letter dated May 25, 1970 accepted the recommendation of the two aforesaid officers and directed that the petitioner may be allowed to undertake operations to take out forest produce from 175 acres in all out of the forest land Mahila Gor Bir and that an undertaking may be got executed from him to the effect that after he was permitted to undertake operations in that area he would have no further claim left in the matter. I have looked into the record of the State Govt. in this respect, which was placed before me by the learned Additional Govt. Advocate in fairness, and it appears from a perusal of the record that although the petitioner was allowed to take out forest produce from 75 acres more of forest land of Mahila Gor Bir vide agreement dated March 6, 1972 in addition to 100 acres of forest land, which was allowed to him earlier vide agreement dated May 11, 1970, yet the petitioner went on representing his point of view for reconsideration of the matter before the State Government, probably because he did not give the requisite undertaking inspite of availing of the offer of the State Government regarding undertaking operations in 175 acres of Mahila Gor Bir forest area. The petitioner filed an earlier writ petition in this court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 987 of 1975 on the allegation that the petitioner was not afforded a hearing in the matter before the same was decided by the State Govt. In that writ petition an assurance was given on behalf of the State Govt. by the Addl. Govt. Adv. on March 17, 1976 to the effect that the State will have no objection in granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the matter in dispute. The writ petition was dismissed in the expectation that the State Government would give a hearing to the petitioner and then pass an appropriate order. The State Government admittedly gave a having to the petitioner, but it appears that no order was communicated to him as to the out come thereof and thereupon the petitioner approached this Court again by means of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1725 of 1976 with the prayer that the State Government may be directed to pass an appropriate order in the matter in dispute. In that writ petition the State Government appeared in response to a show cause notice and stated that the representation of the petitioner for allowing further forest land to him was rejected by the State Govt. after hearing him. The petitioner amended the writ petition and prayed that a speaking order should have been passed. Thereupon, a copy of the order which was passed by the State Government dated January 24, 1977 was delivered to the petitioner, upon which the petitioner withdrew the aforesaid writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if considered necessary. It is in this context that the present writ petition has been filed, and the order passed by the State Government on January 24, 1977 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the hearing given by the State Government to the petitioner was not a proper and effective hearing inasmuch as the report of the Chief Conservator of Forests dated April 21, 1970 was not disclosed to him, and he was not given an opportunity to rebut the same. As I have already referred to the facts of the case above from which it is quite clear that the State Government had decided on May 25, 1970 that the petitioner should be allowed 175 acres of forest land in Mahila Gor Bir, accepting the report submitted by the Chief Conservator of Forests dated April 21, 1970 in which he had in turn endorsed the report of the Divisional Forest Officer dated April 4, 1970. It is clear from a perusal of the reports of the Divisional Forest Officer and the Chief Conservator of Forests that according to the enquiries made by them the average density in the Dhanta forest area was determined by them as 15 while in respect of the Mahila Gor Bir the average density was determined as 6 After comparing the density of the two forest areas, it was recommended that 1/4th of the area claimed by the petitioner in the Dhanta Forest area should be allowed to the petitioner in the Mahila Gor Bir and as such it was determined that 175 acres of forest area be allowed to the petitioner in the Mahila Gor Bir in exchange for and as equivalent to 702 acres of Dhanta forest area. It was after the aforesaid order had been passed by the State Government on May 25, 1970 and was duly communicated to the petitioner that the petitioner availed of the remaining 75 acres of forest area in Mahila Gor Bir forest vide agreement dated March 6, 1972 But he still persisted in making further representations and claimed that 527 acres more of the forest area should be allotted to him, as only 175 acres had already been allowed out of 702 acres claimed by him. In making this submission, the petitioner equated the Mahila Gor Bir forest area in respect of density to the Dhanta forest area. This Court had earlier directed the State Government to give a hearing to the petitioner and while the petitioner was heard by the State Government in the matter, it was the duty of the petitioner to have produced all materials in his possession or power to show that the Dhanta forest area was of equal or comparable density to that of Mahila Gor Bir forest area. The order passed by the State Government dated January 24, 1977 shows that the petitioner did not produce any material before it in this respect even after full opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. The report of the Chief Conservator of Forests dated April 21, 1970 was not a new document of which the petitioner was not aware earlier, but it was the very basis of the order passed by the State Government on May 25, 1970, a copy of which appears to have been endorsed to the petitioner by the Divisional Forest Officer, Sirohi along with his letter dated June 19, 1970 allowing him 175 acres of Mahila Gor Bir Forest, as is clear from the record of the Department which has been placed be fore me for perusal.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Government shows that even after hearing the petitioner, and considered the material on the record again, the State Government was satisfied that the area of 175 acres of Mahila Gor Bir forest allotted to the petitioner in exchange was equivalent to 702 acres of Dhanta forest area, comparing the relative density of the forest areas and thus the State Government was of the opinion that the matter did not deserve any reconsideration. I am, therefore, of the view that there was no breach of the principles of natural justice in the present case and the State Government only considered the material which was already on record even while passing the earlier order dated May 28, 1970. In case the petitioner still feels dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Govt. by which it decided not to allow any further forest and to the petitioner in exchange, the petitioner can file a suit for damages; if he has suffered any loss on account of the alleged breach of contract on the part of the State Govt. The question as to what loss the petitioner has suffered and what amount of compensation could be admissible to him, if any at all, are matters which can not be gone into by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The State Government, as one of the parties to the contract is entitled to hold one view as to what area of forest land in Mahila Gor Bir is equivalent to 702 acres of Dhanta forest area, taking into consideration and comparing the relative density of the two areas. If the petitioner desired to contest the conclusion arrived at by the State Government and its officers, in that matter, then he may establish his claim in a civil court, if he so liked, in a properly constituted suit, in case such a suit is not barred by limitation. It is clear that in the circumstances the petitioner cannot get any other relief except that of damages, if he is entitled to any relief at all, for the alleged breach of contract by the State Government and for that purpose the petitioner should approach the proper civil court in a suit.