9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (4) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs that a surcharge or 7 1/2 per cent over the amount of the bid would be charged to all outstill contractors for the privilege to remove fuel and mahua from the Government forest. At the time of the second auction also, a similar condition was announced. Accordingly, the State Government sought to recover ₹ 1357-8-0 for the first year and ₹ 2032-8-0 for the second year from the petitioner. Respondents 2 to 4, who are respectively the Deputy Commissioner, Durg, the Divisional Forest Officer, Durg Division, Rajnandgaon, and the Tahsildar, Kawardha, have threatened to recover the amounts due from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Actually warrants for recovery of the amounts by attachment have been issued. The petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issued in due course . The petitioner has admitted that these conditions were announced at the time of the auction and that he offered his bid, subject to these conditions. Shri D.L. Jayawant, for the petitioner, however, contends that these conditions merely amount to giving information by the Government regarding some liability which might arise in future. From the wordings of the clauses in the memoranda, the contention seems to be justified. It is not, however, necessary to decide whether the inclusion of the condition amounts to a contract to pay the surcharge. Further, under section 143 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954, moneys due to the State Government under any contract can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e forest. It does not impose the levy of a royalty on all liquor contractors irrespective of the fact whether they take any fuel from the forest or not. Section 32 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which is the authority for making these rules, does not give power, for a general levy of a royalty on all persons in this manner. Presumably Clauses (b) and (e) of sec. 32 arc the basis for the commutation rules. They only provide for granting of licences to persons living in the villages in the vicinity of protected forests to take trees, timber or other forest produce for their own use. These rules have thus no application to the case of liquor contractors who have not specifically agreed to avail of the privilege of removing any forest produce. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he wanted to remove any fuel from the forest and to pay for it. It does not appear that the Government can of itself, impose a compulsory levy on all liquor contractors irrespective of the fact whether they avail of the privilege of removing fuel from the protected forest or not. In this aspect, the levy would amount to a tax or a cess which can only be imposed. under the authority of law as provided in Article 265 of the Constitution. 8. In the result, we find that the imposition of a surcharge at 71/2 per cent on the amount of bid on the liquor contract which is being levied against the petitioner is without the authority of law. Further the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue is illegal. 9. The petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
