Girdharilal Kesharwani Vs. State of M.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/500902
SubjectContract
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJan-04-2000
Case NumberM.P. No. 2682 of 1987
JudgeC.K. Prasad, J.
Reported inAIR2000MP317; 2000(3)MPLJ307
ActsGeneral Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 27; Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code, 1959 - Sections 155; Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 82; Madhya Pradesh Forest Act, 1965
AppellantGirdharilal Kesharwani
RespondentState of M.P. and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV.S. Dabir and ;Yogesh Dhande, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateS.K. Sethi, Dy. Adv. General
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredRamdhan Agrawal v. State of M.P.
Excerpt:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
contract - tender - recovery - respondent issued tenders in respect of tendu leaves - petitioner submitted his offer - offer accepted, contract executed and tender granted in petitioner's favour - petitioner failed to perform his part of contract - respondent suffered heavy losses as he has to re-auctioned the tender and thus, initiated recovery proceedings for recovery of damages - revenue recovery certificate issued in respondent's favour for recovery of loss amount as arrears of land revenue - petitioner opposed the same on grounds that he was not communicated by respondent that his offer was accepted and respondent can not recovered amount as arrears of land revenue - hence present petition - held, it is clear that respondent sent registered letters regarding confirmation of offer of.....
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
orderc.k. prasad, j. 1. by this writ petition, filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the revenue recovery certificate (annexure b) whereby the petitioner was askedto deposit a sum of rs. 34,221/- failing which, he was threatened that the aforesaid amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a notice inviting tender for disposal of tendu leaves for the year 1979 was published on 27-12-1978 in the m.p. gazette (extra-ordinary). petitioner submitted his offer. it is the stand of the petitioner that although the tenders were opened on 20th january, 1979, but he was not communicated about its acceptance. accordingly, the stand of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

C.K. Prasad, J.

1. By this writ petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayer of the petitioner is to quash the revenue recovery certificate (Annexure B) whereby the petitioner was askedto deposit a sum of Rs. 34,221/- failing which, he was threatened that the aforesaid amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that a notice inviting tender for disposal of tendu leaves for the year 1979 was published on 27-12-1978 in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary). Petitioner submitted his offer. It is the stand of the petitioner that although the tenders were opened on 20th January, 1979, but he was not communicated about its acceptance. Accordingly, the stand of the petitioner is that in the absence of any material to prove that the offer of the petitioner was accepted, he cannot be asked to make payment of the loss which the respondents suffered on account of subsequent disposal. Further stand of the petitioner is that the amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

3. Stand of the respondents however is that acceptance of the offer of the petitioner was communicated by registered cover and he declined to accept the same and as such the letter accepting the offer of the petitioner shall be deemed to have been served. Further stand of the respondents is that in view of Clause 11 of the notice inviting tender read with the agreement dated 20th January, 1979, i.e. Tendu Patta Tenderers Agreement, respondents can realise the amount as arrears of land revenue.

4. Notice Inviting tenders from persons and parties desirous of purchasing tendu leaves was published in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-Ordinary) dated 27th December, 1978. Clause 7 (ii) (1) and (2) of the terms and conditions of the tender reads as follows:-

'7 (ii) (1) - Every Tenderer shall execute the Agreement Bond, form of which is enclosed with this tender notice, and submit the Agreement Bond along with Tender Form and other necessary documents in accordance with condition 8, for every unit for which he intends to present the tender to purchase such unit.

(2) Incase, the Agreement Bond enclosed with the tender is not executed, the tender shall not be considered and the required amount of Earnest Money deposited with the tender shall be forfeited in full. In addition the Government may black list such a tenderer for a period not exceeding threeyears.'

Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of the tender notice which is also relevant for the purpose, reads as follows :-

'11. The Tenderer whose Tender has been opened shall be bound by his offer and by the terms and conditions of this Tender Notice till orders of the Competent Authority accepting or rejecting his tender are passed or another person or party is appointed as the purchaser for that Unit.

In case of breach of this condition, the Earnest Money Deposit, required to be deposited under Condition 6 above, shall be forfeited and the Government may black list him for a period not exceeding 3 years. In addition the tenderer who has withdrawn his offer shall bear the loss, if any, suffered by Government in the subsequent disposal of that Unit and this loss, unless paid within 15 days from the date of issue of notice of demand, shall be recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue. If on such resale, the amount realised is more than what is to be recovered from the tenderer then the tenderer shall have no right or claim on this excess amount. For calculation of loss, the following formula will be used :-

Amount of loss - (Tender rate offered by the tenderer which has been withdrawn (-) purchase rate (in Rupees) obtained in subsequent disposal) (x) Number of standard bags notified for that unit. Note :- If that unit is not disposed of subsequently the amount of loss recoverable from the tenderer will be equal to the Tender rate offered by the tenderer which has been withdrawn (-) collection cost (x) Number of standard bags notified for that unit (-) net revenue realised from the disposal of Tendu leaves collected departmentally.'

5. In pursuance of the aforesaid Gazette notification, petitioner submitted his offer. Along with the same, he entered Into an agreement dated 20-1-1979. It was signed by the petitioner and Conservator of Forest, on behalf of Govt. of M.P. Clause 1 of this agreement shows that parties agree to the conditions appended to the tender notice. Tender of the petitioner as also other persons were opened on 20th January 1979. Petitioner asserts that respondents did not communicate him the acceptance of his offer. Respondents however, in the returnhave stated that the tender offered by the petitioner was accepted by the Conservator of Forest and the acceptance was communicated to the petitioner on address disclosed in the tender-form through registered post. It is relevant here to state that in the tender form, petitioner disclosed that he is resident of Village Hanumana, Police Station Hanumana in the district of Rewa.

6. Mr, Dabir, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that as the petitioner was not communicated the acceptance of his tender, amount of loss resulting on resale of its working subsequently cannot be realised from the petitioner. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Kalluram Kesharvani v. State of M.P., AIR 1986 MP 204 and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 4 of the Judgment, same reads as follows (at page 206-207) :-

'4. We have therefore to see whether the tender submitted by the petitioner was accepted, whether the said acceptance was communicated to the petitioner and whether the petitioner withdrew his offer before communication of acceptance. The general rule is that it is the acceptance of offer by the offeree and Intimation of that acceptance to the offerer which results in a contract. See Karan Singh Chandan Singh v. Collector Chhatarpur, 1980 MPLJ 231 : AIR 1980 Madhya Pradesh 89. One of the exceptions to this general rule is that when by agreement, course of conduct or usage of trade, acceptance by post or telegram is authorised, the bargain is struck and the contract is complete when the acceptance is put into a course of transmission by the offeree by posting a letter or dispatching a telegram. Bhagwandas v. Girdharilal & Co., AIR 1965 SC 543. But even in such case, where the intimation of acceptance does not reach the offerer it has to be shown that the letter or telegram of acceptance was correctly addressed to the offerer otherwise it could not, although posted or dispatched, be said to have been put in a course of transmission to him. Ramdas Chakravati v. Official Liquidator Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd.. (1887) ILR9 All 366.

The petitioner asserted that the acceptance of his tender was never communicated to him. As against this, the respondentsstate that the petitioner was communicated about the acceptance of his tender by letter Annexure RIV. The respondents have nowhere pleaded, as to how this letter was sent to the petitioner, whether by messenger or through post. It is also not stated on which date, the letter was put into transmission. Bare statement in the return that the letter of acceptance was sent to the petitioner is not enough. The date, the mode of transmission and the address on which the letter was posted or dispatched or delivered through personal messenger should have been pleaded in the return and documents if any, should also have been filed. It is true that the letter (Annex. IV), is addressed to the petitioner and his address given in it tallies with his address, given in the petition. However, the letter does not bear any memo number and the date; nor does it show the date on which it was signed by the Conservator of Forest. However, the copy of this letter forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer. Rewa, bears the endorsement No. T.P. /2347, Rewa dated 5-3-1979. From this endorsement, it does appear that copy of this letter was forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, but such a conclusion cannot be reached in the absence of any number and date that it was also forwarded to the petitioner. No other document or material was placed on record by the respondents as may positively show, that the acceptance of offer was actually communicated to the petitioner, or that any letter to that effect was put into transmission on his address. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that it is not proved that the acceptance of petitioner's tender was communicated to him.'

7. Mr. S. K. Seth, Deputy Advocate General, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that from the pleading of the respondents, it is evident that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been communicated as regards to the acceptance of his tender.

8. Having appreciated the rival submissions, I do not find any difficulty In accepting the broad submission of Mr. Dabtr that in case the acceptance of the petitioner's tender was not communicated, he cannot be asked to make good the loss; resulting on account of resale or its working by the State subsequently. However, in the present case, the meat of the matter is as to whether respondents communicated to the petitionertheir acceptance of the tender. Respondents, as stated earlier, in the return have stated that the tender offered by the petitioner was accepted by the Conservator of Forest and the acceptance was communicated to the petitioner on address disclosed in the tender form through registered post. It has been further stated that the envelope which was sent to the petitioner was returned back to the office of Conservator of Forest with the endorsement that the person is not available. Thereafter, the acceptance was sent to the petitioner's address at village Sarai in the district of Sidhi, where he declined to receive the same. A photo stat copy of the registered cover sent to the petitioner has been placed on record. A perusal thereof shows that the registered cover was sent to the petitioner at the Hanumana address disclosed in the tender form. Same was returned. Thereafter it was redirected to the petitioner's Sarai address in the district of Sidhi where, according to the note of the postal authorities, he declined to accept the same.

9. Mr. Seth points out that the same would amount to service on the petitioner the letter of acceptance of his tender. Mr. Dabir, however, points out that the petitioner is a resident of Hanumana and there is nothing on the record to suggest that the respondents made any enquiry about the address of the petitioner and hence could not have sent the registered letter at Sarai address. Stand of the respondents in this regard is that the petitioner is, in fact, the resident of Sarai in the district of Sidhi and in order to mislead the respondents, he has disclosed that he is a resident of village Hanumana.

10. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which a certificate signed by the President of the Municipal Council dated 29th March, 1985 has been placed on record, which shows that the petitioner is resident of village Sarai. Dist. Sidhi, and is residing as tenant at Hanumana since 1975. Aforesaid certificate produced by the petitioner itself shows that he is the resident of village Sarai and is residing as tenant at Hanumana. Registered letter was sent at the petitioner's address at Sarai, which he has declined to accept. From where the respondents got the address of the petitioner is of no consequence. According to the certificate produced by him, he is the resident of villageSarai and he having declined to accept the registered cover conveying acceptance of his tender, it would be deemed that the communication of the respondents accepting the tender of the petitioner has been served on him. Once it is held so, the authority of this Court in the case of Kalluram Kesharvani (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner as in the said case, on facts, this Court found that the acceptance of the tender was not communicated to the petitioner. I do not find any substance in this submission of Sri Dabir.

11. Mr, Dabir, then contends that deficiency cannot be realised as arrears of land revenue. Mr. Seth, however, appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in view of Clause 11 of the notice Inviting tender and Tendu Patta Tenderers Agreement (Annex, R/1), same can be realised as arrears of land revenue. Mr. Dabir in support of his submission, that the amount cannot be realised as arrears of land revenue, has placed reliance on a Judgment of the Supreme Court In the case of K. P. Chowdhary v. State of M.P., AIR 1967 SC 203 and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph from the said Judgment at page 206-207 :-

'10. What was said in these cases with respect to Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act. 1935, applies with equal force to Article 299(1) of the Constitution. Two consequences follow from these decisions. The first is that In view of Article 299(1) there can be no implied contract between the Government and another person, the reason being that if such Implied contracts between the Government and another person were allowed, they would in effect make Article 299(1) useless, for then a person who had a contract with Government which was not executed at all in the manner provided in Article 299(1) could get away by saying that an implied contract may be inferred on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. This is of course not to say that if there is a valid contract as envisaged by Article 299(1), there may not be implications arising out of such a contract. The second consequence which follows from these decisions is that if the contract between Government and another person is not in full compliance with Article 299(1) it would be no contract at all and could not be enforced either by the Government or by the other person as acontract. In the present case it is not in dispute that there never was a contract as required by Article 299(1) of the Constitution. Nor can the fact that the appellant bid at the auction and signed the bid-sheet at the close thereof or signed the declaration necessary before he could bid at the auction amount to a contract between him and the Government satisfying all the conditions of Article 299(1). The position therefore is that there was no contract between the appellant and the Government before he bid at the auction nor was there any contract between hjm and the government after the auction was over_as required by Article 299(1) of the Constitution. Further in view of the mandatory terms of Article 299(1) no implied contract could be spelled out between the Government and the appellant at the stage of bidding for Article 299 in effect rules out all implied contract between Government and another person. The view taken by the High Court that Section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code which provides for recovery of money as arrears of land revenue would therefore ensure in favour of the Government and enable it to recover the deficiency cannot be sustained. That clause provides for recovery of all moneys falling due to the State Government under any grant, lease or contract and says that they shall be recoverable in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. The High Court was of the view that the word 'contract' in this clause includes an implied contract between the Government and another person in view of the mandatory provision of Article 299(1) of the Constitution there can be no question of recovery of any money under an implied contract under Clause (b) of Section 155. The view therefore taken by the High Court that this amount could be recovered under Section 155(b) is not correct.'

(Underlining Mine)

12. Another decision on which Sri Dabir has placed reliance is a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of K. P. Choudhary v. State of M.P., 1971 RN 132 : (AIR 1967 SC 203) and my attention has been drawn to the following paragraph of the said Judgment:-

'4. Learned counsel for the State contended that in the conditions of auction which were published along with the notice for auction there was condition 14 which was as follows :- 'Subject to the provisions of condition 13 if a successful bidder fails at the close of the auction to pay the amount of the consideration or the first instalment, as the case may be, or to furnish security or to complete the formalities the earnest money deposited by him shall be forfeited to the State Government and the contract shall be reauctioned at the risk of the successful bidder and any deficiency happening on such resale shall be recoverable from the successful bidder as arrears of land revenue but he shall not be entitled to any excess over his bid that may be obtained by such resale.'

Condition No. 23 of these very conditions is also relevant in this connection. This condition is as follows :-

'The act of bidding shall be deemed to be a complete and unreserved acceptance of these conditions.'

No rule has been brought to our notice to show that these conditions of sale were enforceable as a rule of law. These conditions were merely attached to the sale notice and condition No. 23 indicates that these conditions were supposed to be binding on the parties by the act of bidding and they were intended to be enforced merely as an implied contract. These conditions, therefore, do not come within the clutches of Section 82 and do not authorise the State Government to realise the money as arrears ofland revenue,'

13. Yet another decision on which Sri Dabir has placed reliance is the Judgment of this Court in the case of Sumati Chand Vinodi Lal (Firm) v. State of M.P., 1995 RN 46, and my attention has been drawn to the following passage from the said Judgment :-

'8. The provisions which were being considered by a Division Bench of this Court in K. P. Choudhary's case (supra) are in pan materia with this case. In this view of the matter, the mode of recovery adopted in the present case can not be sustained. Annexure P/1 in so far it provides recovery as arrears of land revenue is quashed. The State Government would be at liberty to pursue any other remedy available under the law.'

14. He has also drawn my attention to an unreported decision of this Court dated 27-5-1999 passed in M.P. No. 2256/87 (Tokarsibhai v. State of M.P.), wherein it hasbeen held as follows :-

'5. Mr. Dabir is right when he submits that the aforesaid point stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in case of Sumati Chand Vinodi Lal (Firm) (supra). As a result, the mode of recovery adopted in the present case, cannot be sustained and accordingly revenue recovery certificate dated 8-2-1984 (Annex. F) is quashed. However, this will not prevent the State Government to pursue any other remedy available under the law.'

15. Mr. S. K. Seth, Dy. Advocate General however, submits that the deficiency can be recovered under Section 82 of the Forest Act, 1927, as substituted by M.P. Act No. 9 of 1965. It is common ground that tendu leave is a forest produce. Section 82 of the Forest Act, as amended by the State Act, reads as follows :-

'82. All money other than fines payable to the State Government under this Act or under any rules made thereunder or an account of timber or other forest produce, or under any contract relating to timber and other forest produce including any sum recoverable thereunder for breach thereof or in consequence of its cancellation, or under the terms of a notice relating to the sale of timber or other forest produce by action or by invitation of tenders issued by or under the authority of a Forest officer and all compensation awarded to the State Government under this Act may, if not paid when due. be recovered under the law for the time being in force, as if it were an arrear of land revenue.' - M.P. Act 9 of 1965. Section 18 (20-3-1965).

16. A plain reading of Section 82 of the aforesaid Act makes it abundantly clear that all money other than fines payable to the State Government under the terms of notice relating to the sale of forest produce by auction or invitation of tender, if not paid when due, be recovered as if it is an arrear of land revenue. Clause 11 of the tender notice clearly provides that purchaser would be liable for payment of deficiency to the Government. In view of this the petitioner's case falls within Section 82 of the Forest Act, as amended by the State Act. The view which I have taken finds support from a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Dulichand Agrawal v. State of M.P.. 1980 MPLJ 465, wherein it has been held as follows :-

'A reading of Section 82 goes to show thatall moneys other than fines payable to the State Government under the terms of a notice relating to the sale of timber or other forest produce by auction or by invitation of tenders issued by or under the authority of a Forest Officer may, if not paid when due, be recovered under the law for the time being in force as if it were an arrear of land revenue. Before Section 82 can be applied, it has to be seen whether the amount of deficiency which is being recovered from the petitioner is due under the terms of the notice relating to the sale of forest produce by auction issued by or under the authority of a Forest Officer. We have already stated that the auction of mahua flowers in which the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of nine lots was conducted under the terms of notice (Annexure-A) which also contains the terms and conditions of auction. This notice was issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. Conditions Nos. 11. 12 and 13 of this notice are material. We have already noticed that condition No. 11 provides that a successful bidder will have to deposit 25% of the sale price offered immediately after the completion of the auction. Condition No. 12 provides, that the balance of the offered price should be deposited within seven days of the acceptance of the bid. Condition No. 13 provides that in case of breach of conditions Nos. 11 and 12 the lot would be re-auctioned and the former purchaser would be liable for payment of deficiency to the Government. We have already stated that after the petitioner's bid was accepted, he did not deposit 25% of the purchase price offered. The petitioner also did not deposit the remaining amount of the purchase price within seven days. The nine lots of which the petitioner was the highest bidder were then re-auctioned and the petitioner is being made liable by the State Government for the deficiency. This liability of the petitioner is clearly covered by condition No. 13 of the sale notice. The petitioner's cage falls within the 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).'

17. Mr. Seth, further submits thatTendu Patta Tenderers Agreement (Annex. R/1) read with Clause 11 of the notice inviting tender, respondents are entitled to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is relevant here to state that an agreement dated 20-1-1978 was entered into between the petitioner and the Government of Madhya Pradesh. This agreement was entered into in view of Clause 7 (ii) (i) of tender notice. Clause 11 of the agreement inter alia provides that the parties agree to the conditions appended to tender notice. This agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the Government of Madhya Pradesh and was signed by the Conservator of Forest on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Clause 11 of the tender notice inter alia provides that the loss suffered by the Government, in case the successful bidder withdraws his offer, in the subsequent disposal of the unit shall be paid by the successful bidder within 15 days from the date of issue of demand and on his failure, shall be recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue. In view of the agreement dated 20-1-1979 referred to above, between the petitioner and the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Clause 11 of the tender notice as published in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 27-12-1978, shall be deemed to be the part of the agreement.

18. In my opinion, the agreement dated 20th January, 1979, makes the, clauses of tender notice as part of the agreement. Clause 11 of the tender notice inter alia provides for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is relevant here to state that Section 155(b) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code permit recovery of all money due to State Government under a contract, as an arrear of land revenue. Having held that there was such an agreement, nothing prevented the respondents from realising the amount of loss as arrears of land revenue.

19. Now I refer to the authorities relied on by Sri Dabir on this question. In the cases relied on by the petitioner and referred to above, this Court has held that Clause 11 of the tender notice itself shall not amount to an agreement between the tenderer and the State Government authorising the latter to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue. Supreme Court in the case of K. P. Choudhary (supra) on fact found that 'there was no contract' before the auction or after the auction. Same is the position in the case of K. P. Choudhary and Sumati Chand Vinodi Lal Firm (supra), decided by this Court. However, in the present case, there is specific agreement between the petitioner and the respondents (Annex, R/1) incorporating in the agreement Clause 11 of the tender notice providing for recovery as arrears of land revenue. In such a situation, nothing prevented the respondents from realising the amount as arrears of land revenue and as such, the authorities relied on are clearly distinguishable.

20. Further the question as to whether deficiency can be recovered as arrears of land revenue was not gone in the cases i.e. K. P. Choudhary and Sumati Chand Vinodi Lal (supra) with reference to Section 82 of the Forest Act, as amended by the State Act. I cannot do better then to quote what has been said by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dullchand Agrawal (supra) as follows :-

'7. Before concluding, we would like to point out that in K. P. Chowdhary's case the Supreme Court expressly left open the question whether the amount that was being recovered in that case from the appellant could be recovered under Section 82 or Section 85 of the Indian Forest Act. Indeed, the case was remanded to the High Court for deciding that point. After remand, K.P. Chowdhary's petition (M.P. No. 153 of 1961) was decided by a Division Bench on 22nd July, 1969. A perusal of that Judgment will go to show that Section 82 as substituted by the Madhya Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1965 was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges and reference was made to Section 82 in the shape as it stood before the Amending Act, may be, because the recovery proceedings challenged in that case were started before the enactment of the Amending Act. The learned Judges of the Division Bench had, therefore, no occasion in that case toconsider whether the recovery could be supported under the new Section 82. Similarly, in Ramdhan Agrawal v. State of M.P., the attention of the Division Bench deciding that case was not drawn to the new Section 82.'

Hence I am of the considered opinion that the deficiency is permissible to be recovered as arrears of land revenue on account of valid agreement under Section 155 (a) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code as also under Section 82 of the Forest Act, as amended by State Act.

21. Mr. Dabir lastly submits that in accordance with Clause 11 of the agreement, respondents were under an obligation to give 15 days time for payment of the amount which the respondents suffered as loss, but the petitioner having not been given any notice to make such payment, they ought not to have straightway proceeded to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. However, when confronted, Mr. Dabir could not point out that any such pleading has been made in the writ petition. In view of aforesaid, I am not inclined to go into this question.

22. All the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner having no substance, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case however, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited, be refunded to the petitioner.