The appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 56/1991 in the court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Cachar, (now Civil Judge) against the present respondents, as defendants, praying for passing a decree declaring the Bakijai Proceeding No.1/1990-91/Forest/189-90 as void, illegal and inoperative; for realization of Rs. 35,750/- being the value of 286 cubic metres of sand, apart from realization of Rs. 300/- being the earnest money deposited and Rs. 8100/- being the security money deposited. The plaintiff also prayed for pendente lite and further interest at the rate of 18% on the aforesaid amounts. 2. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that Barak Sand Mahal No. II (hereinafter referred to as the mahal) was put to sale under the provision of the Assam Sale of Forest Products Coops and Mahals Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 1977 Rules) for the year 1986-88, in which process the plaintiff participated and the settlement was made in his favour he being the highest tenderer at Rs. 81,000/- for operation of the said sand mahal for the aforesaid period of two years. 3. According to the plaintiff the initial order of settlement was issued on 4.4.1987 (Ext. 1) and the final order of settlement was issued on 27.4.1987 (Ext. 2) by reducing the working period from 1.1.1987 to 31.10.1988. The plaintiff on getting such settlement deposited the security money of Rs. 8,100/- by means of national saving certificate, apart from depositing Rs. 300/- towards earnest money along with the tender paper. It is also the pleaded case of the plaintiff that the agreement bearing No. 4/1987-88 (Ext. A) was thereafter executed, copy of which, however, according to the plaintiff was not furnished to him. The further case of the plaintiff is that he paid the first kist money out of eight kists payable in terms of the said agreement. According to the plaintiff on the basis of his representation filed the Divisional Forest Officer on 16.11.1987 (Ext. 9) rescheduled the period for payment of the kist money from second to eighth and accordingly the second kist money was paid and he was issued with the work order for lifting of the sand up to the value of second kist money. 9) rescheduled the period for payment of the kist money from second to eighth and accordingly the second kist money was paid and he was issued with the work order for lifting of the sand up to the value of second kist money. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that he paid the third kist money on 15.6.1988, though after the reschedule of the payment of third kist money he was required to pay the same on 1.3.1988 which, however, was accepted by the Forest department. It has also been pleaded that the Divisional Forest Officer, Silchar Division, Silchar without terminating the agreement and despite the fact that the payment of kist money was rescheduled by Ext. 9, issued the risk sale notice putting the said sand mahal for risk sale for the remaining period from 1.5.1988 to 30.10.1988, which was eventually settled with one Ranabir Das Gupta on 6.8.1988 at Rs. 52,000/-. The plaintiff, therefore, has contended that since such risk sale notice was issued without terminating the agreement and despite the reschedule of the time for payment of the kist money vide Ext. 9 he is entitled to recovery of Rs. 35,740/- being the price of unextracted sand of 286 cubic metres apart from the security money of Rs. 8,100/- and the earnest money of Rs. 300/-. The Bakijai proceeding initiated against the plaintiff has also been put to challenge contending that since it is the allegation of the Forest Department that the plaintiff defaulted in payment of 51,000 out of the settled amount of Rs. 81,000/- and the mahal having been settled in favour of another person on the basis of the risk sale notice issued at Rs. 52,000/- there was no loss of revenue of the Govt. and, therefore, there cannot be any bakijai proceeding for recovery of Rs. 51,000/- 4. The defendants/respondents on receipt of the summons entered appearance and filed the written statement basically contending that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the appellant having failed to pay the kist money of Rs. 51,000/- in terms of the settlement and agreement the proceeding for recovery of Rs. 51,000/- has rightly been initiated. 51,000/- in terms of the settlement and agreement the proceeding for recovery of Rs. 51,000/- has rightly been initiated. It is also contended that the plaintiff having violated the terms of the agreement is not entitled to recover any amount as claimed by him in the suit. 5. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issued for determination : “1. Has the plaintiff any cause of action? 2. Whether the plaintiff deviated from the terms and conditions of the contract agreement? 3. Whether the plaintiff was a defaulter in respect of kist money and successful operation of the Mahal? 4. Whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to get back the security money ? 5. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled? 6. Shall this suit suffer for noncompliance of the provisions u/s 80 of the CPC? 6. While the plaintiff/appellant examined himself as witness apart from proving 19 documents being Ext. Nos. 1 to 19, the defendant did not examine any witness who, however, cross examined the plaintiff (PW 1) and during such cross examination proved two documents being Ext. A i.e. the agreement No. 4 of 1987-88 and Ext. C, the notice inviting tender pursuant to which the settlement was initially made in favour of the plaintiff. 7. The learned trial court upon appreciation of the evidences on record, both oral and documentary, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant declaring that the Bakijai proceeding is void and illegal and also for recovery of Rs. 21,430/- against the claim of Rs. 35,750/-, apart from recovery of Rs. 300/- towards the earnest money and Rs. 8,100/- towards the security money deposited by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred Title Appeal No. 10/1995 before the first appellate court which was decided by the learned Addl. District Judge, Cachar, Silchar vide judgment and decree dated 28.6.1996, allowing the appeal preferred by the present respondents/defendants and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court by holding that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the CPC on the Bakijai Officer before whom the Bakijai proceeding is pending and the plaintiff having violated the conditions of the agreement is not entitled to the decree prayed for. Hence the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. Hence the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. None appears for the respondents/defendants though the matter was heard day before yesterday (21.2.2012) as well as today (23.2.2012). 10. The appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 3.12.2011 on the following substantial question of law: - Whether the Bakijai proceeding initiated against the plaintiff in the instant case is sustainable under Rule 17 of the Assam Sale of Forest Products Coops and Mahals Rules, 1977. 11. Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff at the outset has submitted that though the plaintiff in the suit has claimed a decree for Rs. 35,750/- apart from the decree of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 8,100/- towards the earnest money and security money deposited, as aforesaid, the plaintiff does not press the said prayer for passing the decree for the aforesaid amount. 12. It has been submitted that the first appellant court while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents/defendants has committed illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by holding that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC on the Bakijai Officer as such notice is not required to be served on the Bakijai officer, proceeding having been initiated at the instance of the Forest Department on which the notice under Section 80 CPC was issued and served. It has also been submitted that since the Divisional Forest Officer by the risk sale notice dated 20.6.1988 (Ext. 11) put the mahal in question on risk sale i.e. at the risk of the plaintiff for the remaining period of settlement i.e. from 15.8.1988 to 30.10.1988, for failure of the plaintiff to pay the kist money amounting to Rs. 51,000/- pursuant to which the mahal was settled with one Ranabir Das Gupta at Rs. 52,000/- for the remaining period, there is no loss of Govt. revenue and as such there cannot be initiation of any Bakijai proceeding against the plaintiff for realization of Rs. 51,000/-, in view of Rule 17 of the 1977 Rules, which aspect of the matter according to the learned counsel, has not taken into consideration by the first appellate court while allowing the appeal. The learned counsel further submits that without terminating the agreement as per the condition stipulated therein no risk sale notice can be issued. 13. 51,000/-, in view of Rule 17 of the 1977 Rules, which aspect of the matter according to the learned counsel, has not taken into consideration by the first appellate court while allowing the appeal. The learned counsel further submits that without terminating the agreement as per the condition stipulated therein no risk sale notice can be issued. 13. As noticed above, the mahal in question was put to sale for the year 1986-88, pursuant to which the provisional order of settlement was issued in favour of the plaintiff settling the said mahal at Rs. 81,000/- on 4.4.1987. Vide order dated 27.4.1987 (Ext. 1) the final order of settlement was thereafter issued for the period from 24.7.1987 to 31.10.1988 (Ext. 2) though the initially period of settlement was for two years i.e. from 1986-87 and 1987-88. The agreement bearing No. 4 of 1987-88 was executed by the plaintiff by which he agreed to pay the offered value of Rs. 81,000/- in eight equal installments (kist) of Rs. 10,125/-. The first kist was payable on 14.7.1988 and second to eighth kist were payable after every two months starting from 1.10.1987 and ending on 1.10.1988. The Divisional Forest Officer, the settling authority, in view of the change of period of settlement, vide order dated 16.11.1987 (Ext. 9) rescheduled the time for payment of second to eighth kist money. While second kist was made payable by 1.12.1987, the third to eighth kist was made payable after every two months commencing on 1.3.1988 to 1.2.189. By the said order the terms and conditions stipulated in the aforesaid agreement (Ext. A) relating to the payment of kist money stood modified. 14. It is not in dispute that out of Rs. 81,000/-, i.e. the value at which the settlement was made, the plaintiff has paid Rs. 30,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 51,000/-, for which the risk sale notice dated 20.6.1988 (Ext. 11) was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer putting the said mahal to sale at the risk of the plaintiff for the remaining period of settlement i.e. from 15.8.1988 to 30.10.1988 and accordingly the settlement order was issued in favour of one Ranabir Das Gupta on 6.8.1988 (Ext. 12) at the offered value of Rs. 52,000/-. 11) was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer putting the said mahal to sale at the risk of the plaintiff for the remaining period of settlement i.e. from 15.8.1988 to 30.10.1988 and accordingly the settlement order was issued in favour of one Ranabir Das Gupta on 6.8.1988 (Ext. 12) at the offered value of Rs. 52,000/-. Though the agreement executed by the plaintiff bearing No. 4 of 1987-88 requires issuance of notice and termination of such agreement in the event of failure of the plaintiff to comply with the conditions of the agreement, such agreement was not cancelled and the risk sale notice was issued. 15. Rule 17 of the 1977 Rules provides for risk sale of mahals for the remaining part of the period in the event the settlement holder fails to pay the installments on due dates, after cancellation of the settlement, with further stipulation that in the event the proceeds on the resale are less than the value at which it was originally sold the same shall be realized from the settlement holder. In that case the earnest money as well as the security deposit shall be adjusted against the dues. 16. As discussed above, out of the settled value of Rs. 81,000/- the plaintiff admittedly paid Rs. 30,000/- and for non payment of the kist money amounting to Rs. 51,000/- the Bakijai proceeding was initiated for realization of the said amount. The mahal was put to resale at the risk of the plaintiff as required under Rule 17 of 1977 Rules which was settled with one Ranabir Das Gupta at Rs. 52,000/- for the remaining period of settlement and hence there is no loss to the Govt. revenue and there is no difference between the sale proceed and the resale value. That apart, as noticed above, the risk sale notice was issued even without cancelling the agreement. 17. The ground on which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the first appellate court i.e. want of notice under Section 80 CPC is also not tenable as the Bakijai proceeding was instituted at the instance of the Forest Department, issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC to the Secretary of the said department being not in dispute. 17. The ground on which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the first appellate court i.e. want of notice under Section 80 CPC is also not tenable as the Bakijai proceeding was instituted at the instance of the Forest Department, issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC to the Secretary of the said department being not in dispute. The Bakijai officer is a quasi judicial authority under the Bengal Public Debt Recovery Act, 1913, for adjudication and realization of the amount recoverable under the said Act, on the basis of the claim lodged by the Forest Department and as such the suit of the plaintiff cannot held to be not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC to the Bakijai officer who initiated the proceeding at the instance of the Forest department of the Govt. of Assam. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is set aside. The suit of the plaintiff, with regard to the declaration that the Bakijai proceeding No.1/1990-91/Forest/189-90 is illegal, is decreed, as the amount sought to be recovered in view of the aforesaid discussions, cannot be recovered from the plaintiff. 19. The suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent indicated above. No cost. 20. The Registry is directed to draw a decree accordingly. _____________