Research › Browse › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

1953 DIGILAW 193 (KER)

Kurian v. State

1953-12-14

M.S.MENON

body1953
Judgment :- 1. On 8.7.1950 the Government of Travancore-Cochin passed the following order, No. F2-7536/49/DD, in respect of the petitioner's prayer for compensation for the losses alleged to have been sustained by him in the performance of a contract of 1122: "The request of the petitioner for compensation for the losses said to have incurred by him cannot be granted. He will however be given the work of felling, collection and delivery of the 955 trees already marked in the Vandanmet Range and those available for exploitation in the area (if any) with a time limit of two years from the date of agreement at the fixed kolevila rates agreed to by him, viz., Teak and Blackwood Rate per c. Ft. Ist and 2nd class Rs. 3-12-0 3rd class Rs. 3-4-0 The logs have to be delivered at the Parampuzha Depot. 2. As the contractor has to open a road to a length of about 15 miles and construct a few temporary bridges to facilitate transport of timber at his cost, the works in the remaining portion in the Poopara Range will be given to him after the completion of the present work after fixing such kolevila rates as are found reasonable by the Government, taking into account the conditions existing then. 3. The petitioner may now contact the Chief Conservator of Forests who has necessary instructions in the matter." 2. The petitioner duly completed the work regarding the 955 trees specified in the order and the present dispute centres round some 2000 trees subsequently marked by the State for exploitation in the area concerned. According to the petitioner the marking of the trees conferred on him a right or interest in property and the Government cannot refuse to give him the work of "felling, collection and delivery" of those trees as they have decided to do without violating at the same time Art. 31 of the Constitution. His case is summed up as follows in paragraphs 14,15 and 16 of his affidavit dated 13.12.1952: "14. As may be seen from the order of Government dated 8.7.1950 the right to fell the timber in the whole area and transporting the same - such of the timber marked and made available by the department - had been granted to me exclusively on certain specified terms. As may be seen from the order of Government dated 8.7.1950 the right to fell the timber in the whole area and transporting the same - such of the timber marked and made available by the department - had been granted to me exclusively on certain specified terms. This order was in settlement of my claims against Government between whom and me there had been a bona fide dispute subsisting. Government did recognise my claims and instead of awarding me compensation granted me certain rights in respect of the timber standing and available for cutting and removal in the Vandenmet Range. 15. It is therefore not competent for the Government to go back on or derogate from the grant already made in my favour in lieu of a money compensation, particularly seeing that by the marking of the trees in Thovalakkuzhy these trees have been definitely brought within the scope of the grant made to me. 16. Any interference by Government with the rights that I have thus acquired and have been enjoying in respect of the timber as explained above would be an interference with my rights to property for which I am entitled to protection under Art. 31 of the Constitution." 3. The petitioner moved the Government of Travancore-Cochin in order to secure the work for himself but without success. On 24.5.1952 the Chief Minister passed the following order in pursuance of which Memo F2-13527/51/DD dated 27.5.1952 was issued to the petitioner: "The proposal to entrust the work of extracting all saleable royalties and junglewood available in the enclosed area at Thovalakkuzhi in the Vandanmettu Range to contractor Sri K.C. Kurien was refused. The normal procedure of public auction should be followed." and the order, No. F2-5957/52/DD dated 6.12.1952, on a subsequent petition dated 21.5.1952 was: "The request of the petitioner cannot be granted." 4. The prayers in this petition before me seeking a cancellation of the two orders extracted above are: "(1) To remove the records and proceedings in connection with and relating to the orders of Government F2-13527/51/DD dated 27.5.1952 and F2-5957/52/DD dated 6.12.1952. (2) To quash the abovesaid two orders by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate order of direction that this Court may deem fit to pass. (2) To quash the abovesaid two orders by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate order of direction that this Court may deem fit to pass. (3) To compel the Government by a writ or order in the nature of mandamus to put the petitioner in possession of the trees marked and ascertained in Thovalakuzhi mentioned in his affidavit for the purpose of felling, extracting and transporting the same to the Government Depot specified, and also (4) To prohibit the Government by way of a writ or order in the nature of prohibition against in any manner interfering with the rights of the petitioner as set forth in his affidavit." The petitioner's case as already stated is that with the marking of the 2000 trees a right of property in his favour came into being and that the non-entrustment of the work of "felling, collection and delivery" to him amounts to a violation of a right of property amenable to correction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 5. I am not prepared to agree. The question involved is nothing more than the petitioner's contractual right under the order of 8.7.1950, namely, a right to do a particular item of work at a particular rate during a specified period, and for the breach, if any, of such a contractual obligation the remedy should be sought not by proceedings like these but a regular action in the ordinary way. 6. In this view no other question will arise for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted at the hearing that if I were not prepared to agree with him that the order of 8.7.1950 savoured of a grant and that by the marking of the trees a right in property became vested in his client, the petition must fail and will have to be dismissed. 7. I express no opinion as to the rights or wrongs of this case. All that I need say for a disposal of the petition is that no right of property is involved, that Art. 31 is in no way attracted and that the petitioner's claims are solely within the ambit of contractual rights and obligations. 8. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs, advocate's fee Rs. 200/-. Dismissed.