# CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ORS v. RAITAN SINGH

- **Citation:** [1966] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 158
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 255 of 1964
- **Bench:** K. N. Wancihjo, J.C. Shah Ands. M. Sikri
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chief-conservator-of-forests-and-ors-v-raitan-singh-3795
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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 reserved 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 produce. 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 Forests for decision. The D.vis10nai Forest Officer, acting under r. 15(1),
held that the contractor committed a breach of the contract and assessed 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 contractor 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.

## Text

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 reserved 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 produce. 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 Forests for decision. The D.vis10nai Forest Officer, acting under r. 15(1),
held that the contractor committed a breach of the contract and assessed 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 contractor 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 committed 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 restraining enforcement of the order. The High Court granted the petition
and restrained the State and the forest authorities from recovering 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 authorized 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 Court has without
any plea or evidence assumed that compensation under r. 15(1)
could not be directed to be paid by the contractor for damage done
in the coupe, for which he was given a contract, because the coupe
was not included in a. reserved forest. The plea which appealed to
the High Court was not raised in the petition, nor in the objections
to the Divisional Forest Officer in reply to the notice to show
cause, nor in the memorandum of appeal before the Conservator of
Forests, nor in the petition invoking the revisional jurisdiction of
the Chief Conservator of Forests. The High Court assumed that
because the forest authorities charged the contractor with "illegal
fellings in the coupe" granted to him, the "fellings could not be in
a reserved forest''. For this assumption there is no warrant. The
High Court was therefore in error in setting up the ground that
the impugned order was not authorised by the terms of r. 15(1) .
But the appeal filed by the appellants must still fail on the
grounds to be presently set out.
The following are the relevant terms of the contract:
H
"I. The Governor hereby agrees to sell to the forest contractor, and the forest contractor agrees to purchase the
forest produce described in the First Schedule
hereunder
160
SUPREllE COURT REPORTS
[1966] SL'PP. B.C.R.
Schedule
after stated."
situated in the area speciJied in the said
A
on the conditions hereinThe First Schedule describes the area of the forest
and sets out the torest produce sold under the contract.
''6. The forest contractor shall be subject to the Forest
B
Contract Rules as amended from time to time \a
copy of
which has been turnished to the torest contractor, the receipt
of which the torcst contractor hereby acknowledges) and th~
Ruic; shall t>e oecmcd to oc part ol this contract m so far as
they are appiicablc thereto:
Provided that the said Rub shall be deemed to be modic
tied to the extent and in the manner .laid down in the Second
Schedule hereunder."
"7. The forest contractor hereby bimls himself to perfom1
all acts and uutres requHed, and lo abstam by himsell and his
servants or agents trom performing any act forbidden by the
Indian Forest Act, 1927, by the Forest Contract Rules and by
tins contract.
"
"9. Jn the event of any doubt or dispute arising between
the parties as to the interpretation of any of the conditions of
this contract or as to the performance or breach thereof, the
matter shall be retcrred to the Chief Conservator of Forests,
Madhya Pnidesh, :'iagpur, whose decision shall be final and
bindmg on the parties hereto."
ily cl. o of the contract, the Forest Contract Rules framed by the
10<:al Government are made part of the contract. The material
..:tauses of the Rules read as follows:
"2. All contracts whereby Government sells forest produces to a purchaser shaU be subject to the following rules, in
so far as they arc applicable, and these rules, 1n so far as
they arc applicable. shall be deemed to be binding on every
forest con11actor 1101 only as ruks made under the Forest Act,
but also as conditions of his forest contract:
IJ
E
F
Provi,kd that the forest olliccr executing a forest contract
shaU have power to vary these rules by express provision in
such contract, and where these rules arc in conflict with such
G
an express provision, such express provision shall prevail:
Provided further
"
"15(1) A forest contractor shall be responsible for any
damage that may be done in a reserved forest by himself or
his servants and a~ents. The compensation for such damage
II
shall be assessed by the Divisional forest Ot!icer, whose decision shall be deemed to be that of an arbitrator and shall be
,,
,,
I
.~
'
A
B
CONSERVATOR OF l<'ORESTS v. RATTAN SINGH (Shah, J.)
161·
final and binding on the parties, except to the extent that it.
shall be subject to an appeal to the Conservator of Forests.
Explanation.-
(2) Any sum assessed as damages under this rwe shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue ................. .
"30(1) Where the forest contractor commits a breach of
any of the conditions of his contract but it is not proposed to
terminate his contract on account thereof, the whole penalty
provided for in rule 28 shall not be recovered from him, but
the Divisional Forest Officer shall have power to recover a
portion thereof, not exceeding five hundred rupees, in accordance with the provisions of section 85 of the Act.
(2) An order of the Divisional Forest Officer under this
rule shall be subject to appeal to the Conservator of Forests
if the amount levied exceeds two hundred rupees, but shall
otherwise be final.
(3) The payment of a sum assessed under this rule shall
absolve the forest contractor from all further liabilities under
his contract in respect of such brea.ch, except his liability under
rule 15 for damage done in a reserved forest."
On behalf of the respondent it was urged before the High
Court, as also before this Court, that where " dispute arose
between the Divisional Forest Officer and the contractor, whether
the contractor, his servants or agents had caused damage in a
E
reserved forest, the question could be deciued in
the manner
appointed in cl. 9 of the contract alone, i.e., by arbitration of the
officer denominated, and not by the Divisional Forest Officer. In
dealing with the validity of the order imposing penalty upon the
contractor the High Court upheld that argument. Rule 15 in the
first instance declares that the forest contractor shall be responsible
for any damage done either by himself, or his servants or agents:
F
it then proceeds to state that compensation shaH be assessed by
the Divisional Forest Officer whose decision shall be deemed to be
that of an arbitrator, subject to an apprnl to the Conservator of
Forests. The rule uoes not confer upon the Divisional Forest Officer authority to determine. when a dispute is raised, whether damage
has been caused in a reserved forest by the contractor, his agents
or his servants. The rule only declares that for damage that may
G
be done. by the contractor, his servants or agents, in the forest, the
contractor shall be liable: the rule also invites the Divisional Forest
Officer with authority to determine the amount of compensation
payable by the contractor, but not to determine whether .the contractor, his servants or his agents have committed breach of the
contract. Clause 9 of the contract confers authority upon the Chief
H
Conservator of Forests to adjudicate upon disputes, inter a/ia. as
to the performance or breach of the contractor. By. cl. I read with
the Schedule to the contract "the contractor had to fell or uproot
162
8Ul'REHE OOURT ~REPORTS i ; (1966] SUPP, S.C.R.
trees marked with a gcru band or to fell trees on coupes and section
lines which bear a marking hammer impression on the stump
buttends and all Karru over 9" at B.H. whether marked or not".
It was the case of the Divisional Forest Officer that the conlractor
had, contrary to the terms of the contract, cut trees not marked
with the gem band. Plainly, the Divisional Forest Ollicer claimed
!hat the contractor had committed a breach of the terms of the
contract, and when the contractor denied the breach. a dispute
arose between the parties as to the performance or breach of the
terms of the contract. and it had to be referred to the Chief Conservator of Forcs!s. It is conceded, and in our judgment counsel is
right in so wnceding. that the expression "shall be referred to"
means "shall be referred to the Officer denominated" as an arbitrator to decide 1hc dispute.
It was argued hcwever that by virluc of cl. 6 of the contract,
the Forest Contract Rules were made part of the contract, and the
Divisional Forest Oflicer was invested with authority not only to
determine the amount of compensation which may be payable by
the contractor for damage done in a reserved forest, but also to
determine whclher the contractor or his agents or servanls had
been responsible for causing the damage. This, for reasons already
stated, we arc unable to accept.
There is no inconsistency between cl. 9 of the contract and
A
B
c
D
r. 15. It is unnecessary, therefore, lo consider whether in case of
inconsiotency, the terms of the contract expressly setting out a ccrE
lain covenant may supersede the terms of the rule. Under r. 15
the liability for damage done in a
reserved
forest
is declared
against the contractor. He is also declared liable to pay compensation as may be asseS>ed by the Divisional Forest Officer. But the
Divisional Forest Ollker is not invested with authority to determine whelhcr the damage was done hy the contractor, his agents
or servants. That is a matter which must be determined in a referF
ence under cl. 9 of the contract.
It was urged by 1hc appellants that it could not have been inlcnded by the rule-making authority. who had also prescribed the
form as part •)f the rules in which lhe contract was required to be
executed. to set up a complicated and clumsy procedure for
G
determination of a dispute about the breach of contract. If the
,.+ ..
language of the rules were ambiguous. this may be a relevant con1J.
,ideration. When a dispute arises bc1ween the contractor and the
forest
authori1ics
rdating to the performance or breach of the
contract. there has. under the terms of cl. 9. lo be a reference to
the Officer denominated in the contract. After liabilily is detcrminH
ed. there may have to be an assessment by the Divisional Forest
Officer of compensation payable by the contractor to the State.
•
-•
~
~
A
B
c
D
Fl
F
G
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS V. RATTAN SINGH (Shah, J.)
163
That would necessitate another inquiry. The procedure is apparently clumsy and likely to be dilatory. But we are una.ble to ignore the
plain terms of the contract and the rules, and to hold that in respect of the determination of responsibility for damage done in a
reserved forest, there need be no reference under cl. 9 of the terms
of the contract.
It was then urged that in any event a decision was in fact
given by the Chief Conservator of Forests in this case, and that
decision complied with the requirements of cl. 9 of the contract.
But as already stated, the Divisional Forest Officer passed an order
holding the respondent .Hable to pay compensation for damage
done in a reserved forest and
assessing the compensation at
Rs. 8,500 and penalty at Rs. 500. That order was confirmed in
appeal by the Conservator of Forests, and in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction the Chief Conservator of Forests upheld the
order of the Conservator of Forests. The Chief Conservator of
Forests did not even purport to act as an arbitrator: he recorded
no evidence, and expressly held that the Divisional Forest Officer
was not obliged to refer the case for arbitration under cl. 9 of the
contract. The trial was not of a proceeding in arbitration, but of
a proceeding in exercise of supervisory or revisional jurisdiction. If
in truth the dispute had to be referred for adjudication to the Chief
Conservator of Forests, his decision that he found no reason to
interfere with the "findings of the Divisional Forest Officer" who
was one of the parties to the dispute, cannot conceivably be regarded as an award between two contesting parties. It must therefore
be held that the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer imposing liability for compensation for damage done by i1legal fellings
cannot be sustained.
The second part of the order imposing penalty under r. 30(1)
also suffers from the same infirmity. It is true that under the rule!
the Divisional Forest Officer had power to impose penalty in a
sum not exceeding Rs. 500. But exercise of that power is conditioned by the existence of a breach by the forest contractor of any of
the terms of the contract. Where a. dispute arises whether there has
been a breach of any of the terms of the contract, it is, for reasons
already stated, to be determined by the Chief Conservator of
Forests. That has admittedly not been done. The order imposing
penalty under r. 30(1) must also be set aside.
The appeal therefore fails and is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.