Short Note : 1. It is not in dispute that Naib-Tahsildar, Bhainsdehi, held an auction for disposal of 653 standing Teak trees of Khasra No. 245/2, in village Kordi, Tahsil, Bhainsdehi, District Betul on 16-12-1960 and the plaintiff's bid for Rs. 725/- was accepted. The plaintiff deposited the full auction price of Rs. 735/- by 6-1-1961 in Revenue Case No. 4-A/1962 of 1959-60. At the instance of the Naib-Tansildar, the plaintiff also executed one Ikrarnama Ex. D-1 on 13-1-1961 undertaking to cut and remove all the 653 Teak trees from the said Khasra number by 30-4-1961. Thereafter the plaintiff was put in possession of the said Khasra on 14-1-1961 vide receipt Ex. D-2. The plaintiff thereafter fell the trees as per Ikrarnama but it appears that he could not remove the felled timber in the absence of securing any Hammer mark and transit passes from the Forest Department though he had moved the Forest Department through the Naib Tahsildar. Though the work was to be completed by 30-4-1961, actually the Collector sanctioned the contract on 5-9-61 i.e. after expiry of the period of contract. The plaintiff thereafter served a notice under section 80, CPC on the State and then filed this suit claiming Rs. 1,665/- as damages for the breach of contract committed by the State by not helping him in getting the Hammer marks and transit passes for removing the felled timber from the suit Khasra. The defendant in its written statement submitted that the sale was not complete till the confirmation by the Collector and the Revenue Authorities were under no obligation to secure the Hammer markes and transit passes from the Forest Department for the plaintiff In any case, the plaintiff's application was forwarded by the Naib-Tahsildar to the Forest Department and it was for the plaintiff to pursue that matter. As the plaintiff himself failed to remove the felled timber within the time fixed by the agreement, he alone has committed the breach of agreement, and, as such was not entitled to claim any compensation. Held: The learned trial Judge held that the standing trees were auctioned under section 240 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959, and without obtaining the sanction of the Collector the plaintiff felled the trees and he was, therefore at fault. Held: The learned trial Judge held that the standing trees were auctioned under section 240 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959, and without obtaining the sanction of the Collector the plaintiff felled the trees and he was, therefore at fault. The plaintiff also failed to prove that it was the responsibility of the Revenue Authorities to secure the Hammer marks and transit passes from the Forest Department for the plaintiff However, he found that there was no reliable evidence to show that the plaintiff had removed or appropriated the felled timber from the suit Khasra. It was further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he sustained loss of Rs. 1,665/-. The plaintiff's suit was therefore dismissed as he was not entitled to claim damages from the defendant. The decree of the trial Court was affirmed in appeal. 2. However, this Court in Second Appeal No. 518/68 allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and remanded the case to the lower appellate Court for fresh decision in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In that appeal, counsel for the State conceded that section 240 of the M.P.L.R. Code hrs no application and as such, the findings were set aside. However, it was kept open for the lower appellate Court to consider whether section 251 of the Code applied or not. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the plaintiff's appeal and granted a decree for Rs. 1,460/- as compensation under section 70 of the Contract Act. The appellate judge held that section 241 of the Code has also no application because the notification declaring the forest in village Kordi to be notified area was issued only on 10-4-1961 i.e. after the said contract. Therefore, it has been held that the auction by Naib-Tahsildar was not under any specific provision but was only in exercise of his administrative and executive powers for the management of the lands and there was no completed contract as there was no sanction of the Collector. It has also been held that the Revenue Authorities were not bound to secure the Hammer markes and transit passes for the plaintiff and the plaintiff himself committed the breach by not removing the felled timber from the suit Khasra by 30-4-1961. However, it has been found that besides depositing Rs. It has also been held that the Revenue Authorities were not bound to secure the Hammer markes and transit passes for the plaintiff and the plaintiff himself committed the breach by not removing the felled timber from the suit Khasra by 30-4-1961. However, it has been found that besides depositing Rs. 725/- towards the auction money, the plaintiff has also incurred expenses amounting to Rs. 725/- towards felling of the trees in the suit Khasra. There was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had appropriated the felled timber. The defendant having been benefited from the work executed by the plaintiff and it was not the intention of the plaintiff to the work gratuitously, the defendant is bound to reimburse the plaintiff the expenses incurred by him amounting to Rs. 1460/- as compensation u/s. 70 of the Contract Act, a decree for Rs. 1460/- has therefore been passed against the State. 3. Also see Malamchand v. State of M. P. ( AIR 1968 SC 1218 ). 4. It has been found by the learned Additional District Judge that the defendant State is benefited from the work executed by the plaintiff because the felled trees were not appropriated by the plaintiff. This is also evident from the report of the Patwari, Ex. P-3, that he found the logs of the felled trees were lying scattered on suit Khasra when, he visited the spot that he could not say whether the plaintiff has removed any Jogs of wood. Though the ADJ has held that the auction by Naib Tahsildar was neither under section 240 nor under section 241, and it was in exercise of his administrative and executive powers subject to confirmation by Collector but he failed to consider that the plaintiff had no option but to proceed with the work by felling the trees and removing the logs as this was to be completed by 30-4-1961. It was, therefore, expected of the Revenue Authorities to obtain the sanction of the Collector immediately but instead of doing that the Collector granted sanction on 5-9-1961 much after the expiry of the period of contract. Therefore, the plaintiff committed no breach in immediately starting the felling operations and he has incurred expenses. Since the plaintiff has taken the contract for felling the trees on payment of consideration, it was never his intention to do the work gratuitously. Therefore, the plaintiff committed no breach in immediately starting the felling operations and he has incurred expenses. Since the plaintiff has taken the contract for felling the trees on payment of consideration, it was never his intention to do the work gratuitously. Though the ADJ has held that the plaintiff was responsible for not removing the felled trees from the suit khasra but this does not seem to be correct. From the rules framed under sections 240 and 241, it is apparent that no felled trees could be removed without obtaining the hammer marks and transit passes from the Forest Department. This is also the requirement in respect of reserved and protected forests under the Forest Act. The plaintiff having cut the trees, he would have certainly removed them and appropriated to himself if that was possible but in absence of the hammer marks and transit passes, he could not remove the logs. Therefore, there was no breach committed by the plaintiff. The breach was by the Revenue Authorities in not securing hammer and transit passes, this is more so because they have fixed a time limit for the execution of the contract and they were expected to help the plaintiff in securing hammer marks and transit passes well within time, which they failed to do. Under the circumstances, a decree for Rs. 1460/- i.e the actual expenses incurred by the plaintiff for the contract, has been rightly awarded as compensation under section of the Contract Art. Appeal dismissed.