1959 (4) TMI 24 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Challenge to the State Government's right to recover arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the State Government's demand for payment of surcharge for the privilege to remove fuel and mahua from the Government forest, arguing that the demand was without jurisdiction and the mode of recovery as arrears of land revenue was illegal.
2. The State Government justified the levy of surcharge under the contract, as commutation charged under the Commutation Rules framed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and as a form of royalty recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
3. The conditions announced at the time of auction, regarding the surcharge, were challenged by the petitioner as mere information about potential future liabilities, not necessarily constituting a contractual obligation to pay.
4. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, stipulates that moneys due under a contract can only be recovered as arrears of land revenue if there is an express condition in the contract to that effect, which was not alleged by the respondents in this case.

Analysis Continued:
5. The Additional Government Advocate attempted to justify the levy under the Rules framed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, pertaining to commutation, but it was argued that these rules did not apply to all liquor contractors and required a voluntary agreement by all residents of the village.
6. The contention that the surcharge amounts to royalty and is recoverable as arrears of land revenue was examined, with references to legal definitions of royalty emphasizing the need for an agreement between parties for such payments.
7. The court concluded that the imposition of the surcharge without legal authority and the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue were illegal, leading to the quashing of the orders for recovery and directing the State Government to pay costs and refund the security amount to the petitioner.