Supreme Court of India, Beg, J. (Ray, C.J. and P. N. Shin6hal [sic], JJ. on the bench), October 26, 1976 — Civil Appeal Nos. 313-315 of 1974. Three appeals by certificate by Timber Kashmir Pvt. Ltd. against the Division Bench judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dated 8-8-1972 in Civil First Appeals Nos. 46-48 of 1972, allowing the Conservator of Forests' appeals from a Single Judge's dismissal of the State's three applications under S. 20 of the J&K Arbitration Act, 2002 for reference of disputes, under arbitration clauses, contained in three forest leases executed on 27th/28th February and 19th March 1963. The Single Judge had held the arbitration clauses formed part of agreements not duly executed under S. 122(1) of the J&K Constitution (stated to correspond to Art. 299(1) of the Constitution of India in the headnote; the body of the report prints 'Article 199(1)'). HELD: (i) sanction may be express or implied; a lessee who derived benefits could be estopped from questioning the grant of sanction even without a written contract binding him; (ii) once leases are validly executed by duly authorised officers, the executed documents are the best evidence of sanction, formal execution serving also to protect the Government against mala fide and unauthorised acts of its servants or agents (Mulamchand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 214, applied); (iii) the notification/order of 23-2-1957 under sub-s. (1) of S. 122 specifically governed execution of formal documents including forest leases and authorised the Secretary to Government, Chief Conservator, Conservators of Forests and Divisional Forest Officers without valuation limits, so execution by the Conservator of Forests complied with S. 122(1); the earlier delegation in the Book of Financial Powers (S. 13) concerned sanction/cancellation, not execution; (iv) the Court noted the High Court Chief Justice's view that the ratificatory orders of 14-4-1965 and 29-4-1971 were unnecessary once execution was valid. Formal execution being proved, the Division Bench's orders were affirmed so that the disputes could be validly referred to arbitration; the appeals were dismissed with costs, and C.M.P. No. 8573 of 1975 for interim orders was dismissed as infructuous.
