DIVL. FOREST OFFICER vs MOOL CHAND SAROUGI JAIN

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the amount claimed from the respondent under Section 75 of the Assam Forest Regulation VII of 1891 was not recoverable as it did not pertain to the price of forest produce or expenses incurred in execution of the Regulation. The Court clarified that the claim was not valid under Rule 10 of the Regulation, which governs leases for forest produce. Consequently, the appeal by the State of Assam was dismissed, affirming the High Court's order quashing the recovery proceedings.