Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 394 (GAU)

Borduria Timber Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Ltd.

2025-03-07

N.UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

body2025
JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an Order dated 26.10.2012, passed by the Divisional Commissioner (East), Government of Arunachal Pradesh in Bakijai Appeal No. 01/2011. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:- The petitioner, in the writ petition has projected that it is a lessee of M/s Nocte Timber Company, N.T.C. Tirap. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Forest as well as the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Corporation Limited (APFCL) had entered into separate agreements with the M/s Nocte Timber Company for extraction of Timber from Borduria area of Tirap District. The petitioner company, as the lessee of M/s Nocte Timber Company had carried out the work and was to pay the revenue to the Government of Arunachal, Department of Forest as well the APFCL for operation of Timber business. The dues receivable from the petitioner in connection with the Timber operation carried out by it, not being cleared, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Deomali Forest Division, Tirap District had in the year 2000, made a requisition under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act , 1913 (herein after referred as the BPDR Act) as a 'Certificate holder’ to the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for issuing certificate against the petitioner company and four others, including the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 Corporation for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,11,71,402/ of the year 1999 being Government dues as cost and charges penalty imposed by the High Power Committee, North Eastern Region in pursuance to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said requisition was transferred to the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Certificate Officer, Deomali for disposal and was registered as Case No. JUD/BC/NTC/2000. During the pendency of the said case, the Divisional Manager of the respondent no. 1 Corporation filed a petition before the Court of the Certificate Officer with a prayer to implead the respondent no. 1 Corporation as a Certificate holder together with the Divisional Forest Officer instead of as a Certificate debtor. It is seen that the respondent no. 1 Corporation was thereafter, impleaded as a Certificate holder no. 2 in the said case vide an order dated 24.01.2006. 1 Corporation as a Certificate holder together with the Divisional Forest Officer instead of as a Certificate debtor. It is seen that the respondent no. 1 Corporation was thereafter, impleaded as a Certificate holder no. 2 in the said case vide an order dated 24.01.2006. The Certificate Officer framed two issues for consideration in the case so registered before him. The issues so framed were (i), whether objection of the Certificate debtor is maintainable in law and (ii), whether the Certificate debtor is liable to pay the amount as claimed in the certificate. During the pendency of the said proceeding and before the said issue could be decided, the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali Forest Division, filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Khonsa, which was registered as Civil Misc. Revision No. JUD/BC/NTC/Rev.1/06. The Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, upon hearing the parties vide order dated 25.07.2006, directed the Certificate Officer, Deomali, to record the evidences in the matter and after recording the evidences, to send the same to the Court of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for passing of final order. It is seen that in compliance of the said order, the evidences were recorded by the Certificate Officer, Deomali. Thereafter, on 07.09.2006, the Certificate holders filed a petition for amendment of the requisition and also filed amended requisition in Form-I and II of the Certificate for an amount of Rs. 48,24,198.78/- being the amount of revised liability, to which the petitioner herein filed its objections. After hearing the parties to the proceeding, amendment was allowed by the Certificate Officer vide an Order dated 03.11.2006. Thereafter, on conclusion of the evidences, the entire case record was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, for passing final order therein. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, vide his order dated 30.03.2011, disposed of the case by directing as follows:- "On further perusal of the case record it is also noticed that the D.F.O Deomali Sri Umesh Kumar have filed a certificate against the N.T.C. Lessee B.T.P amongst others claiming a sum of Rs. 1,11,71,402/- due and payable by them but while adducing evidence the said D.F.O have categorically stated that the forest dues (Govt. dues) is only Rs. 18,28,770/- (and the rest amount of Rs. 1,11,71,402/- due and payable by them but while adducing evidence the said D.F.O have categorically stated that the forest dues (Govt. dues) is only Rs. 18,28,770/- (and the rest amount of Rs. 16,65,131/-being penalty amount fixed by Hon'ble Supreme Court has already been paid by Certificate Debtor) which has also been admitted by the objector CERTIFICATE DEBTOR N.T.C Lessee B.T.P in their written statement and denying the other liabilities being the liability of the A.P.F.C.L which is not Govt. but have a separate legal entity. During and in course of argument though the Ld. Counsels in their oral and written argument and also by placing some observations of the Hon'ble High Court tried to impress upon this Court that the corporation and Government is one and same but I am not inclined to accept the argument as the Hon'ble High Court has rather opined otherwise, that the amount due to Corporation is distinct from what is due to Govt. as Corporation cannot be considered to be Dept. of Govt. or agent of the Govt. nor are their employees are Govt. servants(relied on AIR 1976 Kerala 37 ). Therefore I am of the opinion that A.P.F.C.L being not Govt. can realize their dues against the present CERTIFICATE DEBTOR by restoring to civil suit if any, but not through the present process. The B.P.D.R Act is very clear regarding its enforceability and issuance of a certificate to recover only Govt. dues. Hence I am not inclined to discuss the evidence of A.P.F.C.L. I, therefore, hereby ORDER that the D.F.O, Deomali Forest Division Deomali, Dist: Tirap, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, is entitled to receive only a sum of Rs. 18,28,770/- (Eighteen Lakhs twenty eight thousand seven hundred seventy) only which he can realize from the objector CERTIFICATE DEBTOR N.T.C. Lessee B.T.P by giving them one month notice to pay the same, failing which to execute the order and the rest of the claim of the certificate is rejected by giving liberty to A.P.F.C.L to realise their dues if any through proper process in accordance with the provision of law. Accordingly, the case is disposed off with this ORDER." It is projected in the writ petition that the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali, thereafter, vide a communication dated 25.04.2011, required the petitioner to clear the dues so determined as Government dues by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, vide his order dated 30.03.2011. Accordingly, the case is disposed off with this ORDER." It is projected in the writ petition that the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali, thereafter, vide a communication dated 25.04.2011, required the petitioner to clear the dues so determined as Government dues by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, vide his order dated 30.03.2011. The said letter was responded to by the Company vide a communication dated 03.05.2011, wherein, expressing its inability to pay the amount, had requested the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali Forest Division, to allow the company to lift the materials in a phase manner by way of deposit of Rs. 1 lakh in advance against each truck load to be lifted, so as to enable it to clear its dues from the sale proceeds of the materials lifted. Thereafter, the Divisional Forest Officer, Deomali Forest Division along with the Divisional Manager of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, instituted a BakijaiAppeal before the Divisional Commissioner (East), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Namsai and the same was registered as Bakijai Appeal No. 01/2011. In the said appeal, the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District in Case No. JUD/BC/NTC/Rev.1/06 was put to challenge. In the said appeal, a prayer was made to claim an amount of Rs. 1,25,01,699.78/- from the petitioner herein; along with interest. The said appeal was contested by the petitioner herein and on conclusion of the hearing therein, the appellate authority, vide order dated 14.02.2007; proceeded to allow the said Bakijai appeal by holding that the amount claimed against the petitioner is realizable under the BPDR Act and accordingly, passed the following order:- "Therefore, I quash and set aside the Order of the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap Khonsa dated 30th March, 2011 and hold that the Appellant Corporation is entitled to the claim and the respondent is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 1,25,01,699.78 to the appellant. The respondent is therefore directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,25,01,699.78 to the appellant Corporation or to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh within 30 days." Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing of the present proceeding, by referring to the contentions made in the writ petition has contended that the dues as identified to be receivable by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner was agreeable to pay the same. 4. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner, during the hearing of the present proceeding, by referring to the contentions made in the writ petition has contended that the dues as identified to be receivable by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner was agreeable to pay the same. However, the dues that are projected to be receivable by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, it was the stand of Mr. Pertin, that the same was not permissible to be so realizable under the provisions of the BPDR Act. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel has submitted that in the event, there is any due that was realizable by the respondent no. 1 Corporation from the petitioner, the same could have been only so realized by way of instituting appropriate proceeding before a competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. Mr. Pertin, learned counsel has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, vide the order dated 30.03.2011, had arrived at the correct conclusion with regard to the dues receivable by the Government as well as that by the respondent no. 1 Corporation. Mr. Pertin, by referring to the order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner had therein, rightly concluded that the respondent no. 1 Corporation not being the Government, can only realize their dues against the petitioner by taking recourse to a proceeding before the Court of competent Civil jurisdiction and they are barred from claiming the said amount under the BPDR Act, inasmuch as, the recovery under the said Act would be only permissible to the extent of Government dues. Accordingly, Mr. Pertin, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent no. 1 Corporation being a distinct entity than the Government and it not being the agent of the Government, it could not have taken recourse to the provisions of the BPDR Act for recovery of any dues receivable by it from the petitioner. 5. Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the amounts claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation was disputed by the petitioner and accordingly, it is submitted that the proceeding under the BPDR Act would not be the appropriate forum for decision thereon, and accordingly, a proceeding before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction was called for determining the actual liability of the petitioner in the matter. It is submitted by Mr. 1 Corporation was disputed by the petitioner and accordingly, it is submitted that the proceeding under the BPDR Act would not be the appropriate forum for decision thereon, and accordingly, a proceeding before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction was called for determining the actual liability of the petitioner in the matter. It is submitted by Mr. Pertin, that on account of the ban imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on timber operation beyond 1996, the timber operation, as carried out by the petitioner as a lessee of M/s Nocte Timber Company, N.T.C. Tirap was stopped. Accordingly, it is submitted that the operations having stopped, there cannot be any demand for any outstanding royalty for payment from the petitioner. Mr. Pertin, has further questioned the breakup as provided by the respondent authorities with regard to the dues receivable from the petitioner and submits that the same being disputed, the amount due could not have been determined by the authorities under the provisions of the BPDR Act. 6. Per contra, Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the area wherein, the petitioner company was permitted to carry out its timber operations, were obtained by the Government in pursuance to an agreement dated 03.11.1948, entered by and between the Government and the Angs of Namsang. In terms of the said agreement, the Government had taken over the management of the Forest in Borduria area. By referring to the agreement dated 03.11.1948, it is contended that the Namsang Reserved Forest being so created, the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation Act 1891 (as amended) was made applicable thereto. The agreement having constituted a Reserved Forest, it was provided therein that the Government shall pay to the Angs of Namsang 75% of the net revenue of the year so collected, less the amount so permissible to be recovered by the Government in terms of the said agreement. Mr. Picha, has submitted that on the creation of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, an agreement was entered into by it with the Government on 09.03.1978 and therein, the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into with the Angs of Namsang was also incorporated. Mr. Picha, has submitted that on the creation of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, an agreement was entered into by it with the Government on 09.03.1978 and therein, the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into with the Angs of Namsang was also incorporated. In terms of the said agreement, out of the 25% of the net revenue, which was permissible to be retained by the Government, 15% will be retained by the Corporation and 10% will be transferred to the Government as rental value. 7. Mr. Picha further submits that in terms of the said agreement, the Corporation was permitted to collect the revenues and Clause-XIII of the agreement had provided that the Corporation shall at all times, comply with the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. It is contended that the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, having been made applicable to the operations so carried out in the Namsang Reserved Forest so coming into being vide the agreement dated 10.11.1948, and the provisions of the said agreement, being included in the agreement entered into by the Government and the respondent no. 1 Corporation by way of incorporation, it is submitted by Mr. Picha, that the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 would apply to the operations as carried out by the respondent no. 1 Corporation in the collection of revenue with regard to the timber operations carried out by it, in terms of the lease of the forest given to it by the Government. 8. Mr. Picha, learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in view of the fact that the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, was made applicable to the timber operations so made in the Reserved Forest, which had come into existence in terms of the agreement dated 03.11.1948, the Corporation herein, having been authorized to collect revenue on behalf of the Government in respect of the timber operation in the said Reserved Forest, insofar as, the collection of revenue by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 stand attracted. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, any Forest due, if not paid, will be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. 1 Corporation, the provisions of Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 stand attracted. It is submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, any Forest due, if not paid, will be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. It is submitted that the provisions of the BDPR Act would be applicable for recovery of dues receivable on account of timber operations carried out either by the lessee of the Government and/or the lessee of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, in the said Reserved Forest. 9. Mr. Picha, leaned counsel has further submitted that the respondent no. 1 Corporation herein, in addition to carrying out its commercial activities by setting up of industries was also authorized in view of the agreements entered into with the Government to collect revenue with respect to forest produce and forest land on behalf of the Government as its agent and accordingly, for such activities, the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, as well as the BPDR Act would stand attracted. However, it is clarified that for the disputes arising in connection with the commercial activities carried out by the respondent no. 1 Corporation, the BPDR Act would have no application and the disputes would have to be so resolved by way of institution of proceedings before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, disputes arising on account of the power delegated to the Corporation by the Government for collection of revenue, relating to forest produce and forest land, the same was contended to be permissible to be recovered by taking recourse to the provisions of BPDR Act. 10. In view of the above provisions of law, Mr. Picha submits that the demand so made before the Bakijai Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap, by the Forest Department and the respondent no. 1 Corporation being in reality Government dues, a Bakijai proceeding was permissible in the matter. It was further contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Khonsa, vide the order dated 30.03.2011, having erroneously come to a conclusion that the dues claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation would not be maintainable to be so adjudicated under the provisions of the BPDR Act, inasmuch as, it was deemed to be not a Government, the said order was taken up on appeal by way of instituting the Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011. 1 Corporation would not be maintainable to be so adjudicated under the provisions of the BPDR Act, inasmuch as, it was deemed to be not a Government, the said order was taken up on appeal by way of instituting the Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011. It is submitted that the said Bakijai Appeal was considered by the Divisional Commissioner (East), Government of Arunachal Pradesh and the same was allowed with the directions as noticed herein above. 11. Mr. Picha, learned counsel further submits that the order passed by the Certificate Officer dated 24.01.2006, allowing the respondent no. 1 Corporation to be impleaded as a Certificate holder along with the Forest Department in the Bakijai case, as well as the order dated 03.11.2006, by which the amendment of the amount of the amount so involved was permitted to be enhanced, was not challenged by the petitioner herein, and accordingly, the same had attained its finality and the total due receivable from the petitioner worked out to 1,59,95,600.78/-(Rupees Forty-eight lakhs twenty-four thousand one hundred ninety-eight point seventy-eight). In view of the above premises, Mr. Picha, learned counsel submits that the impugned Judgment and Order dated 14.02.2007, passed in Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011, would not call for any interference by this Court. 12 . On conclusion of the hearing, the parties to the proceeding, on being permitted, had also brought on record their respective written arguments. 13. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 14. As noticed herein above, in terms of the agreement entered into with the Angs of Namsang on 03.11.1948, the forest area involved and described in the schedule thereto, was to be notified as a Reserve Forest. In terms of Clause 1 of the said agreement dated 03.11.1948, the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation Act , 1891 (as amended) was made applicable to the subject matter of the agreement. Further, in pursuance to the said agreement, the management of the forest area involved was to vest with the Government. Out of the revenue so collected every year, 75% thereof was to be paid by the Government to the Angs after making the deductions as permissible, in terms of the provisions of the said agreement. On the creation of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, the Government entered into an agreement with the said Corporation on 09.03.1978. Out of the revenue so collected every year, 75% thereof was to be paid by the Government to the Angs after making the deductions as permissible, in terms of the provisions of the said agreement. On the creation of the respondent no. 1 Corporation, the Government entered into an agreement with the said Corporation on 09.03.1978. In terms of the said agreement, the Government had leased the forest area involved, which is the Reserved Forest so created, in terms of the agreement dated 03.11.1948,to the respondent no. 1 Corporation. 15. In terms of the agreement entered between the Government and the respondent no. 1 Corporation, more particularly, Clause-3 thereof, all the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into with the Angs of Namsang-Borduria Chiefs, were to be implemented by the respondent no. 1 Corporation. Further, in terms of the said agreement, it was provided that out of the 25% share of net revenue which was to be retained by the Government in terms of the agreement dated 03.11.1948, 15% would now be retained by the respondent no. 1 Corporation and 10% be transferred to the Government as rental value. The respondent no. 1 Corporation and the Government had entered into agreements with M/s Nocte Timber Company, N.T.C. Tirap, of which the petitioner is a lessee. 16. In view of the agreements holding the field, governing the operation of timber in the Reserved Forest concerned, it is seen that the said forest was vested in the Government in terms of the agreement dated 03.11.1948; and the collection of revenue in this connection was delegated by the Government to the respondent no. 1 Corporation. Accordingly, the revenue collected by the Corporation from the Reserved Forest involved, is actually, being so collected for payment to the Angs of Namsang, in terms of the agreement dated 03.11.1948 and the same wasbeing so done by the respondent no. 1 Corporation as the agent of the Government. Further, the said activity of the respondent no. 1 Corporation is independent of its other commercial activities. 17. As noticed herein above, a dispute having arisen with regard to the non- payment of the dues claimed from the petitioner, the DFO, Deomali Sub-Division had instituted a Bakijai proceeding as Certificate holder under the provisions of the BPDR Act. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the respondent no. 1 Corporation is independent of its other commercial activities. 17. As noticed herein above, a dispute having arisen with regard to the non- payment of the dues claimed from the petitioner, the DFO, Deomali Sub-Division had instituted a Bakijai proceeding as Certificate holder under the provisions of the BPDR Act. During the pendency of the said proceeding, the respondent no. 1 Corporation herein, was also impleaded as a Certificate holder before the Court vide the order dated 24.01.2006. The Court having framed issues in the matter, the Certificate holder No. 1 filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap District, Khonsa, which was registered as Civil Misc. Rev. No. JUD/BC/NTC/Rev.1/06 against the order dated 19.04.2006, passed by the Certificate Officer, Deomali. In the said revision petition vide order dated 25.07.2006, the Certificate Officer, Deomali, was directed to record the evidences of the parties and thereafter, to send the matter to the Divisional Court for passing of appropriate orders. After the matter was remanded to the Certificate Officer for recording of evidence, an application was filed on 07.09.2006, by the Certificate holder, for amendment of the requisition and for issuance of a Certificate for an amount of Rs. 48,24,198.78/- from the petitioner herein. The said amendment was allowed by the Certificate Officer, vide order dated 03.11.2006, incorporating the amount in the proceeding. 18. The order passed by the Certificate Officer impleading the authority of the respondent no. 1 Corporation as Certificate holder, as well as the order dated 03.11.2006, allowing the application of the Certificate holder for amendment of the amount claimed, have not been challenged by the petitioner, herein. 19. Thereafter, on conclusion of the recording of the evidences of the parties, the matter was forwarded to the revisional Court. The revisional Court, vide order dated 30.03.2011 (as extracted herein above), allowed the claim of the Certificate holder No. 1 i.e., the DFO, Deomali, to the extent of the dues claimed by it. However, the claim of the Certificate holder No. 2 i.e., the respondent no. 1 Corporation herein, was refused to be so granted holding that the respondent no. 1 Corporation was not permissible to be construedto be a Government and accordingly, would be required to realize their dues against the petitioner, herein, by resorting to civil proceedings, if any, and not by way of instituting proceedings under the BPDR Act. 20. 1 Corporation herein, was refused to be so granted holding that the respondent no. 1 Corporation was not permissible to be construedto be a Government and accordingly, would be required to realize their dues against the petitioner, herein, by resorting to civil proceedings, if any, and not by way of instituting proceedings under the BPDR Act. 20. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.03.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tirap in Civil Miscellaneous Revision Case No. JUD/BC/NTC/Rev.1/06, the respondent no. 1 Corporation along with the DFO, Deomali Forest Division, instituted an appeal being Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011 before the Divisional Commissioner (East) Government of Arunachal Pradesh at Namsai. The said Bakijai Appeal was allowed vide order dated 14.02.2017 (operative portion of which is extracted herein above), by directing the petitioner herein, to pay an amount of Rs. 1,25,01,699.78/- to the respondent no. 1 Corporation or to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 21. At this stage, the contention made by the petitioner, in its written arguments filed on 05.12.2024, would be required to be noticed: - "1. In view of the Clause 1 of the Agreement dated 03rd November 1948, whereby the Assam Forest Regulation Act , 1891, has been made applicable [Annexure-2 @ page 38-40 of AIO of R/1] read with clause 3 of the agreement 09.03.1978 [Annexure-3 @ page 41-43 of AIO of R/1 and in terms of Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation Act , 1891, it is admitted that the revenue payable to APFCL, if any, would come within the meaning of 'Public Demand' under Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act , 1913." 22. A perusal of the said contention raised by the petitioner in the matter would go to reveal that it has admitted that for the dues payable by it to the respondent no. 1 Corporation, in view of the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, proceedings would be permissible to be so instituted under the provisions of BPDR Act, 1948. The challenge presented in the present proceedings was on the ground that the dues as claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation was not permissible to be so recovered by way of institution of proceedings under the BPDR Act, however, in view of the subsequent contention of the petitioner in the matter, the said ground of challenge no longer exists. The challenge presented in the present proceedings was on the ground that the dues as claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation was not permissible to be so recovered by way of institution of proceedings under the BPDR Act, however, in view of the subsequent contention of the petitioner in the matter, the said ground of challenge no longer exists. Otherwise, also, in view of the agreement dated 03.04.1948, entered into by the Government with the Angs of Namsang, the management of the forest in Borduria area came to be vested with the Government and the Reserved Forest came to be so created. The provision of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, was made applicable to the operations in the said Reserved Forest so coming into being. The agreement entered into by the Government with the respondent no. 1 Corporation, having also incorporated therein, the provisions of the agreement dated 03.11.1948; entered by the Government with the Angs of Namsang, the provisions of the said Regulation of 1891 automatically came to be so attracted in the operations now required to be so carried out in the Reserved Forest by the respondent no. 1 Corporation. The Corporation herein, having acted as an agent of the Government and the collection being one of revenue, the proceedings so instituted by the Forest Department as well as by the respondent no. 1 Corporation by invoking the provisions of BPDR Act, would be maintainable. 23. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that the challenge made to the order dated 14.02.2007, passed by the Divisional Commissioner (East), Government of Arunachal Pradesh in Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011, on the ground that the dues receivable by the respondent no. 1 Corporation is not permissible to be so claimed under the provisions of the BPDR Act, being unsustainable, the said order dated 14.02.2017, passed in Bakijai Appeal Case No. 01/2011 would not mandate an interference from this Court. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner,in his submissions as well as in the written arguments so filed on behalf of the petitioner had disputed the amounts claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation. The said dispute raised would not come within the purview of the present proceedings and accordingly, the same is not being entertained herein. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner,in his submissions as well as in the written arguments so filed on behalf of the petitioner had disputed the amounts claimed by the respondent no. 1 Corporation. The said dispute raised would not come within the purview of the present proceedings and accordingly, the same is not being entertained herein. However, the petitioner is at liberty to institute proceedings in respect of the same before a competent forum in accordance with law, if so permissible. 25. In view of the above discussions, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.