TMI Blog1979 (12) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioner that mahua flowers ceased to be a specified forest produce under the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, with effect from 12th June 1972 and the auction sale was, therefore, not in exercise of statutory powers under the Adhiniyam. The learned Government Advocate who appeared for the respondents did not dispute this position. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction (Annexure-A) a person who wanted to bid at the auction was required to deposit 10% as earnest and he could not be permitted to bid unless he had complied with that condition, and as the petitioner did not deposit 10% as earnest, the bids made by him were not valid bids which could be accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this contention relied upon the cases of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Firm Gobardhana Dass AIR 1973 SC 1164 and Ramdhan Agarwal v. The State of M.P. and others M.P. No. 499 74 decided on 17th January 1976 decided by a Division Bench of this Court. The submission of the learned Government Advocate on this point is that the condition of deposit of 10% before a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the petitioner, therefore, did not suffer any invalidity on the ground that they were not preceded by a deposit of 10%. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that 25% of the price offered by the petitioner in his bids was also not deposited and therefore there was again a non-compliance with condition No. 11 of the sale conditions and for this reason also the bid was invalid. In our opinion, this contention is devoid of any substance. Condition No. 11 requires that immediately after completion of the auction the successful bidder should deposit 25% of the price offered. The words successful bidder as they occur in condition No. 11 refer to the bidder whose bid has been accepted because unless a bid is accepted it cannot be said that a particular bidder is a successful bidder. The deposit of 25% of the price offered cannot therefore be taken to be a condition precedent for validity of a bid. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution and therefore the recovery proceedings were invalid. In this context it was pointed out that the only document which was signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any grant, lease or contract which provides that they shall be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue, may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The point to this extent is entirely covered by K.P. Choudhary's case (supra). It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that although the deficiency cannot be recovered under section 155 (b) of the Land Revenue Code, it can be recovered under section 82 of the Forest Act, 1927 as substituted by Madhya Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1965. Section 2 (4) (a) of the Forest Act defines forest produce to include mahua flowers, whether found in or brought from a forest or not. In view of this definition, mahua flowers constitute forest produce. Section 82 as substituted by Act No. 9 of 1965, reads as follows: 82. Recovery of money due to Government.--All money other than fines, payable to the State Government under this Act, or under any rules made thereunder or, on account of timber or other forest produce, or under any contract relating to timber and other forest produce including any sum recoverable thereunder for the breach thereof, or in consequence of its cancellation, or under the terms of a notice rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e four corners of section 82 of the Forest Act and the recovery as arrears of land revenue of the deficiency is fully covered by that provision. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that section 82 does not create a new liability and that it only provides for a procedure for enforcing a liability and that in the absence of any contract in the manner provided in Article 299 (1) there could be no liability to pay the deficiency. In our opinion, this argument cannot be accepted. Section 82 properly construed creates a statutory liability for recovery of the amount payable to the Government under the terms of a notice relating to the sale of forest produce by auction. This statutory liability can be enforced even though there is no contract as envisaged under Article 299 of the Constitution. This construction of section 82 is strongly supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Damodaran v. State of Kerala AIR 1976 SC 1533. In that case revenue recovery proceedings were started for realisation of the remainder of the amounts due on account of bids at auction sales of toddy shops. The contention of the appellants in that case was that there was no contract as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
