CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS. versus RATTAN SINGH

Citation: [1966] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 158 · Decided: 07-04-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

158 
CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS. 
v. 
RAITAN SINGH 
April, 7, 1966 
[K. N. WANCIHJO, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Central Provinces and Rerar Forest Contract Rules-Rule 15(1)-
Scope of. 
Under r. 15(!) of th" Central Provinces and Berar Forest Contract 
Rules a forest contractc.r is responsible for any damage done in a re-
served forest by h1mscll or his servants or agents and compensation 
for such damage is to be assessed by the Divisional Forest Officer. The 
respondent was, under " contract, granted a r:ght to the forest pro-
duce. By cl. 9 of the Contract any doubt or dispute arising between 
the parties as to the performance or breach of any of the conditions 
of the contract had to be referred lo the Chief Conservator of Fo-
rests for decision. The D.vis10nai Forest Officer, acting under r. 15(1), 
held that the contractor committed a breach of the contract and asses-
sed the compensation for damages. 
HELD: Rule 15(1) aoes not invest the Divisional Forest Officer 
\Vith authority to dctcrniine \\·hether the contractor, his servants or 
his agents have committed a breach of the contract. When a dispul<> 
arises between the contractor and the forest authorities relating to 
the performance or breo,ch of the oontract, there has to be, under the 
terms of cl. 91 a refcrencl' to the officer denominated in the contract. 
After liability is deterno,ne<l, there may have to be an assessment, 
by the Divisionel Forest Oflicer, of compensation payable by the con-
tractor to the State_ ThL'l'C is no inconsistency bctv.·ecn cl. 9 o( the 
Contract and r. 15 [161 i•'-11: 162 E-FJ. 
(C!vIL APPEi.LATE JuR1sv1cr10:-i: Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1964.I 
Appeal by special !cave from the judgment and order dated 
November 14, 1960 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. 
Petition No. 273 of 19j9. 
B. Sen, R. P. Kapur and /. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
S. I'. Sinha, and S. Shaukat ll11ssai11, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J. Under a contract dated 
October 
14. 
1956. 
the 
respondent was granted a right to the forest produce from Coupe 
No. 9. Lcndara in the Sainmura Borgain Reserved Forest in the 
A 
Jl 
c 
D 
F 
Kanker Forest Division of Bastar District of Madhya Pradesh, for 
G 
• 
the period October 14, 1956 to March 31, 1958. The Divisional 
,J.... 
Forest Officer held an enquiry in respect of certain breaches com-
mitted by the respondent of the terms of the contract, and by order 
dated January 30. 1958 directed the respondent in exercise of the 
authority under r. 15( 11 of the Forest Contract Rules framed by 
the Government of Centi .11 Provinces & Bcrar, to pay Rs. 8,500 as 
H 
compensation assessed by him for Jamage done in the reserved 
; 
! 
I 
!! 
. ~ 
' 
A 
B 
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS V. RATTAN SINGH (Shah, J.) 
159 
forest and Rs. 500 as penalty under r. 30(1) of the Forest Contract 
Rules. An appeal against the order to the Conservator of Forests, 
and a revision petition to the Chief Conservator of Forests, 
Madhya Pradesh, were unsuccessful. The respondent then moved 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by a petition under Art. 226 of 
the Constitution for a writ quashing the order dated January 30, 
1958 directing payment of compensation and penalty and restrain-
ing enforcement of the order. The High Court granted the petition 
and restrained the State and the forest authorities from recover-
ing Rs. 9,000, ordered on January 30, 1958, from the respondent. 
In this appeal, the appellants contended in the first instance 
that the High Court was in error in holding that by r. 15 of the 
C 
Forest Contract Rules the Divisional Forest Officer was not autho-
rized to direct the contractor to PilY compensation for damage 
done by him or his agents or servants, because the coupe was not 
in "a reserved forest". Such a case, it was said, was never pleaded 
by the contractor in his petition, and the High Court in granting 
relief to the respondent made out a case which the appellants had 
no opportunity to meet. In support of their case tha.t the coupe is a 
D 
part of the reserved forest, the appellants have annexed to their 
petition for special leave a "true copy" of a notification issued 
under s. 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applied to the 
Central Provinces, declaring that the State forests of the Bastar 
District in Tahsil Kanker Sainmura-Borgaon specified in the 
Schedule shall be reserved forests. 
E 
F 
G 
We agree with the appellants that the High

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.