TMI Blog1968 (2) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellant that the Deputy Commissioner of Balaghat acting under s. 7 of the Abolition Act took charge of the entire Malguzari jungles on April 1, 1951 and prevented the appellant from enjoying the; rights he had already acquired. In the month of April 1, 1951 the Deputy Commissioner auctioned the forest produce of villages covered. under the purchases of the appellant. Out of the forest produce only the tendu leaves crop for the year 1951 was allowed to be enjoyed by the appellant on his depositing a sum of ₹ 3,000 in the Government Treasury, Balaghat under a written permit dated April 30, 1951. The deposit was made by the appellant to save the tendu leaves crop of 1951 from being sold to others by the Deputy Commissioner- of Balaghat. The case of the appellant was that he was entitled to the refund of the. amount as the right to collect tendu leaves for the year 1951 had already been purchased by him. Similarly,. the appellant claimed refund of the amount of ₹ 10,000 which he was required to deposit towards the right to collect lac from those forests for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953. The refund was claimed on the basis that there was no valid contract between t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estates to the grantees and the effect of the Abolition Act was that all such proprietary rights vested in the State with effect from April 1, 1951 free from all encumbrances and the State could therefore lawfully exclude the grantees from enjoying any such rights secured to them under the contracts. Section 3 of the Abolition Act states : 3. Vesting of proprietary rights in the State.-(1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, on and from a date to be specified by a notification by the State Government in this behalf, all proprietary rights in an estate, mahal, alienated village or alienated land, as the case may be, in the area specified in the notification, vesting in a proprietor of such estate, mahal, alienated village, alienated land, or in a person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor, shall pass from such proprietor or such other person to and vest in the State for the purposes of the State free of all encumbrances. (2) After the issue of a notification under subsection (1), no right shall be acquired in or over the land to which the said notification relates, except by succession or under a grant or contract in writing made or entere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed land belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person; (c) all trees standing on land comprised in a home farm or homestead and belonging to or held by the out-going proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person; (d) all trees standing on occupied land other than land comprised in home-farm or homestead and belonging to or held by a person other than the outgoing proprietor shall continue to belong to or be held by such person; (e) all tanks situate on occupied land and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprieter or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person; (f) all tanks, belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor which are situate on land other than village site or occupied land and in which no person other than such proprietor has any rights of irrigation, shall belong to or be held by such proprietor; (g) all tanks and embankments (bandhans) belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person which are situate on land other than village ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment the previous judgment of this Court in Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel Co V. The State of Madhya Pradesh([1953] S.C.R. 476.) was expressly overruled. In our opinion the present case falls directly within the ratio of the, decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Yakinuddin ([1963] 3 S.C.R. 13.) It follows that the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected. We proceed to consider the. next question raised on behalf of the appellant, viz., whether he was entitled to a refund of the deposit of ₹ 10,000 which he had made towards the right to collect lac from the forests for the years 1951, 1952 and 1953. The contention Out forward on behalf of the appellant is that the contracts Were not in conformity with Art. 299 of the Constitution and were consequently void and had no effect. It was claimed that the appellant was entitled to compensation under s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act which is applicable to the case. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that there was no formal compliance of the provisions of, Art. 299 of the Constitution but it was said that the bids were accepted by the Deputy Commissioner Balagbat and wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons( [1962] 1 Supp. S.C.R. 876.). The principle is that the provisions of s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 or the corresponding provisions if Art. 299 (1) of the Constitution of India are mandatory in character and the contravention of these provisions nullifies the contracts and makes them void. There is no question of estoppel Or ratification in such a case. The reason is that the provisions of section 175(3) of the Government of India Act and the corresponding provisions of Art. 299 ( 1 ) of the Constitution have not been enacted for the sake of mere form but, they have been enacted or safeguarding the Government against unauthorised contracts. he provisions are embodied in s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act and Art. 299(1) of the Constitution on the ground of public policy-on the ground of protection of general public and these formalities cannot be waived- or dispensed with. If the plea of the respondent regarding estoppel or ratification is admitted that would mean in effect the repeal of an important constitutional provision intended for the protection of the general public. that is why the plea of estoppel or ratification cannot be permitted in such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w a distinction between law and equity. Principles have. now to be stated in the light of their combined effect. Nor is it necessary to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend on the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular framework. The right here is not peculiar to equity or contract or tort, but falls naturally within the important category of cases where the court orders restitution if the justice of the case so requires. Applying the principle to the present case, it is manifest the the appellant would have been entitled to compensation under s. 70 of the Indian Contract Act if he had adduced evidence : support of his claim, but the trial court has examined the evident. on this point and reached the conclusion that the appellant. collect lac in the jungles in the year 1951 but later on abandoned the working of his own accord. It is wellestablished that a person who seeks restitution has a duty to account to the defendant for what he has received in the transaction from which his right to restitution arises. In other words, an accounting by the plaintiff is a condition of restitution from the defendant (See R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
