1968 (2) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed: No refund for forest produce deposits due to void contracts & lack of evidence

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any refund of the deposits made for the rights to collect forest ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the appellant's right to collect forest produce post-vesting under the Abolition Act.2. Entitlement to a refund of Rs. 3,000 for tendu leaves.3. Entitlement to a refund of Rs. 10,000 for the right to collect lac.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the appellant's right to collect forest produce post-vesting under the Abolition Act:The appellant had purchased the right to pluck, collect, and remove forest produce such as lac and tendu leaves from various Malguzari jungles for the years 1951, 1952, and 1953. This right was acquired before the proprietary rights in those forests vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Abolition Act'). The appellant alleged that the Deputy Commissioner of Balaghat, acting under Section 7 of the Abolition Act, took charge of the Malguzari jungles on April 1, 1951, and prevented him from enjoying the rights he had acquired. The High Court, relying on the decision in Mahadeo v. The State of Bombay, held that the effect of the Abolition Act was that all proprietary rights vested in the State from April 1, 1951, free from all encumbrances, and thus the State could lawfully exclude the grantees from enjoying any such rights secured under the contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that the rights claimed by the appellant were in the nature of proprietary rights falling within Section 4(1)(a) of the Abolition Act and upon the issue of a notification under Section 3, these rights vested in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. Entitlement to a refund of Rs. 3,000 for tendu leaves:The appellant was allowed to enjoy the tendu leaves crop for the year 1951 upon depositing Rs. 3,000 in the Government Treasury, Balaghat, under a written permit dated April 30, 1951. The appellant claimed a refund of this amount, arguing that he had already purchased the right to collect tendu leaves for the year 1951. However, the trial court and the High Court dismissed this claim, holding that the appellant had availed himself of the right to collect tendu leaves and thus was not entitled to a refund.3. Entitlement to a refund of Rs. 10,000 for the right to collect lac:The appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 10,000 deposited towards the right to collect lac from the forests for the years 1951, 1952, and 1953, on the basis that there was no valid contract between him and the State of Madhya Pradesh as the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution were not complied with, rendering the contract void. The trial court and the High Court rejected this claim, stating that although the contracts were not in conformity with Article 299, the appellant had worked the contracts and collected lac, and thus was not entitled to a refund. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings, stating that the contracts were void for non-compliance with Article 299, and the appellant could not sue for specific performance or damages for breach of contract. However, the appellant could have claimed compensation under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act if he had adduced sufficient evidence to support his claim. The trial court found that the appellant had collected lac in 1951 but later abandoned the contract of his own accord. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of reliable evidence regarding the extent of work and profit made, the appellant was not entitled to restitution or refund of the deposit.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not entitled to any refund of the deposits made for the rights to collect forest produce, as the contracts were void for non-compliance with Article 299 of the Constitution and the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to support a claim for restitution under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act. The appeal was dismissed with costs.