Sham Lal vs State of Haryana

D.S. Tewatia, J.(Oral)

The petitioner''s bid of Rs. 18,000/ for the sale of certain lot of forest trees was accepted by respondent No. 2 on 14.1.1965 being the highest bid and he deposited Rs. 1,800/ towards earnest money. The petitioner afterwards did not consider the bargain worthwhile and did not proceed to complete the transaction as required under the conditions of sale. He wrote letter, Annexure P.1 dated 8.2.1965 to the Conservator of Forests, Ambala City, stating that he was not in a position to see through the transaction and that his bid in question be cancelled and the earnest money deposited by him be forfeited. The Conservator of Forests and Divisional Forest Officer did not cancel the bid as requested and instead insisted that the petitioner should deposit the security money and also sign the agreement deed as is evident from the letter Annexure P.2. The petitioner, however, did not sign the agreement nor deposited the security money, with the result that the Conservator of Forests cancelled the petitioner''s bid, ordered the forfeiture of the earnest money and also ordered the resale of the trees vide his order dated 3rd April, 1965. Since the resale did not fetch the requisite amount, the petitioner was required to compensate the department for the shortfall which came to Rs. 10,200/ regarding which a notice was sent to the petitioner on 21.10.1974 by respondent No. 4. He was also intimated that in the event of nonpayment, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue under section 82 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The petitioner has impugned his liability to pay the said amount in this petition inter alia on the ground:

(i) That there existed no valid contract between him and respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and therefore, the same could not be enforced against him; and

(ii) That in any case the amount sought to be recovered did not constitute the sale price of the trees in question which alone could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under section 82 of the Act. The amount in question amounted to damages payable to the respondents and the damages could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

The learned counsel sought support for his first submission from a decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Chowdhry v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 203, and in support of his second submission reliance was placed on Firm Gobardhan Das Kailasnath v. Collector of Mirzapur, A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 721 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Nagarmal Bhagwandas Marwari, A.I.R. 1963 M.P. 205; J.A. Dalmet v. State of Mysore and another, A.I.R. 1965 Mysore 109, and Virendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, A.I.R. 1980 Allahabad 100.

Petitioner''s both the submissions are squarely covered by the ratios of the judgments relied upon on his behalf. I, therefore, allow the petition and quash the order requiring him to pay the amount in question as arrears of land revenue. No order as to costs.