Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 548 (JK)

State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bestofer Forest Co.

2015-10-15

N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, TASHI RABSTAN

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar; CJ.:- 1. This appeal is filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge made in OWP No. 1336/1997, dated 26.11.2009, wherein the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent, challenging the order of the One Man Forest Authority, permitting the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department to file objections to the claim made by the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, was allowed. 2. The case of the 1st respondent- writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that he preferred a claim petition for determination of compensation before the 3rd respondent- One Man Forest Authority (for short hereinafter “the Authority”). Total claim of the 1st respondent is Rs. 1,21,80,699.32 which include compensation payable as on September 23, 1985 and interest on the said amount up to 31.03.1993 and till amount is actually paid further interest claimed at the rate of 20% per annum. The said claim petition was filed on 10.04.1993. Written statement was filed on behalf of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 13.09.1997 wherein it was stated that he was filing the same on behalf of Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department, on the ground that in the claim petition the 1st respondent has not mentioned any officer of the State as respondent/respondents. The filing of the said objections in the name of Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department was objected by the 1st respondent. The Authority vide order dated 25.10.1997 overruled the objection of the 1st respondent by holding that the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department is the administrative head of the Forest Department and having allowed him to file objections posted the matter for production of documents and framing of issues. The Authority vide order dated 25.10.1997 overruled the objection of the 1st respondent by holding that the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department is the administrative head of the Forest Department and having allowed him to file objections posted the matter for production of documents and framing of issues. The said order was challenged by the 1st respondent before the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge, relying upon Sub Rule 3 of Rule 3 of the Jammu and Kashmir Nationalization of Forest Working Act, 1987, held that the Authority on receiving the claim petition is required to send a copy of the same to the Forest Department and call for the objections/counter claims, if any, of the department and the Authority has duly sent a notice to the Forest Department which also responded to the claim petition and filed their objections, therefore, Section 3 (3) of the Act stands complied with and the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department has no need to file another set of objections and the Authority is not vested with any power to accept said objections. Therefore, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Authority dated 25.10.1997 with a direction to hear the matter expeditiously. Aggrieved of the order of the learned Single Judge this appeal has been filed. 3. The appellants have contended that the in terms of Rule 3(3) of the J&K Nationalization of Forest Working Act, 1987, copy of the claim has to be send to the Forest Department for objections/counter claims, if any, and the Secretary to Government, Forest Department, being the head of the Forest Department in terms of Rule 6 of the J&K Business Rules, which provides that each Department of the Secretariat shall consist of the Secretary to Government who shall be the official head of the Department, the objections filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department were rightly permitted to be filed by the Authority, as the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests cannot be treated as the Head of the Forest Department. It is further contended that the Forest Department is not the competent authority to pay compensation and if compensation is determined the same shall be paid by the State and, therefore, the Secretary was given the right to file objections. 4. It is further contended that the Forest Department is not the competent authority to pay compensation and if compensation is determined the same shall be paid by the State and, therefore, the Secretary was given the right to file objections. 4. We have perused the statutory provision which deals with the compensation claim filed before the Authority. Section 3(3) of the Act mandates that the Authority shall send a copy of the claim petition to the Forest Department and call for objections and the Forest Department shall within a reasonable time file a written statement/counter claims. The said Rule reads thus:- “(3) On receiving an application the authority shall send a copy of the same to the Forest Department and call for the objections/counter claims, if any, of the Department. The Forest Department shall within a reasonable time file a written statement dealing with the claim raised in the application.” 5. In this case also the Authority has sent a notice to the Forest Department but instead of the Head of the Forest Department, objections were filed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on 13.09.1997. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Forest Department, on receiving notice/intimation also filed its objections/counter claim on 30.09.1997 being head of the Forest Department in compliance of the statutory provisions of the 1987 Rules. Since the Forest Department is headed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government and he having filed objections in terms of Rule 3 (3) of the 1987 Rules, the learned Single Judge was not right in setting aside the order of the Authority, permitting the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Forest Department to file separate objections. 6. It is well settled principal of law that Authority shall act within the statute and when the statute, namely, Section 3(3) of the Act mandates the procedure to be followed, i.e. serving of notice and calling for filing of written statement/counter claims by the Department, the same cannot be ignored by the Authority and the right of the 1st appellant to file separate objections having been contemplated under the statute, the order of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of the Authority cannot be sustained. 7. 7. It is also an admitted fact that the 1st respondent has not named any party/parties in his claim petition as respondents, therefore, in terms of the Rules, it is only the concerned Department against which notice could have been issued and objections/counter claim asked to be filed. The Forest Department being the concerned Department and headed by the Additional Chief Secretary, the Authority was right in allowing it to file the objections on behalf of the department. 8. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the order of the Authority is affirmed. 9. The Authority is directed to complete the proceedings in accordance with law and pass final orders on merits of the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. No costs.