Forest Act recovery prevails over contract and Sale of Goods Act; only amounts actually due may be certified.

Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act, 1927 were treated as a special recovery code for unpaid forest produce money, so inconsistent contractual terms and the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 could not displace that statutory scheme. The Court held that the State's recovery had to follow the Forest Act mechanism, including the statutory first charge and sale process. It also held that a certificate proceeding could include only amounts then actually due; an instalment not yet fallen due when the requisition and certificate were issued was wrongly certified and had to be excluded. Recovery could proceed only after correction to reflect the sums lawfully payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery of unpaid instalments for forest produce was governed by Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act, 1927 so as to exclude recourse to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the contractual mechanism relied upon by the State. (ii) Whether the certificate proceeding could validly include the instalment that had not fallen due on the date of requisition and certificate.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery of unpaid instalments for forest produce was governed by Sections 82 and 83 of the Forest Act, 1927 so as to exclude recourse to the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 and the contractual mechanism relied upon by the State.

Analysis: Section 82 permits recovery of money payable under the Forest Act as an arrear of land revenue, while Section 83 creates a statutory first charge on forest produce, authorises the Forest Officer to take possession and sell by public auction, and requires the proceeds to be applied first towards the amount due. The statutory scheme expressly deals with the situation of unpaid price for forest produce and also preserves the contractor's right to the surplus, if any. In that setting, the general law governing sale of goods and contractual clauses inconsistent with the statute cannot override the special legislative arrangement.

Conclusion: The recovery of unpaid forest contract money was governed by the Forest Act, 1927, and the general law under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 did not apply to displace that scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether the certificate proceeding could validly include the instalment that had not fallen due on the date of requisition and certificate.

Analysis: A certificate proceeding under the recovery statute is of an exceptional character and the statutory requirements must be strictly followed. An amount can be certified only if it is presently and justly recoverable in law. Since the third instalment had not become due when the requisition was sent and the certificate was signed, its inclusion in the certificate was contrary to the statutory requirements and could not stand.

Conclusion: The certificate was invalid to the extent it included the instalment that was not yet due.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed overall, but the recoverable liability was confined to the amounts actually due under the contract after appropriate adjustment, and the certificate had to be corrected accordingly before further recovery could proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete mechanism for recovery and disposal of forest produce money, that statutory scheme prevails over inconsistent contractual terms and general law, and only amounts actually due can be certified for recovery.

---