JUDGMENT

KASLIWAL. J.— The above appeal by the grant of special leave and the writ petition raise almost identical disputes, as such they are disposed of by common order. In order to appreciate the controversy we would narrate the facts of the appeal.

2. The State of Haryana after coming into force of the Haryana Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act, 1973 issued a notification under subsection (1) of Section 3 of the said Act and acquired the right of the minor minerals in respect of village Basantpur within the District of Gurgaon. On September 14, 1976, a gazette notification was published notifying the general public that minor mineral quarries of Gurgaon district will be put to auction on September 30, 1976. The Punjab Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) are also applicable to the State of Haryana. Rule 28 provides for the grant of contracts by auction or tender. On September 30, 1976 an auction was held in respect of minor mineral of sand situated in village Basantpur. The bid of the appellant for Rs 95,500 per annum was declared to be the highest. According to the terms and conditions of the auction the appellant deposited a sum of Rs 23,875 as advance contract amount and further sum of Rs 23,875 as security. The contract was to be valid till March 31, 1978 from the date of the execution of the agreement. The highest bid of the appellant was confirmed by the Director of Industries, Government of Haryana on December 21, 1976 and the appellant was called upon to approach the Senior District Industries Officer, Faridabad with non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs 1432.50 for execution of the agreement. Under Rule 33 the bidder was required to execute the deed of agreement within one month from the date of communication of acceptance of it failing which the bid shall be deemed to have been revoked and the amounts paid under Rule 30(2) IV or 31(3) as the case may be shall be forfeited to the government. The communication of the acceptance of the bid was received by the appellant on November 8, 1976. The appellant in the above circumstances supplied the non-judicial stamp papers on November 19, 1976 vide Annexure I and requested the Senior District Industries Officer to make the contract effective from the date the quarry site is handed over to the appellant after obtaining the clearance and no objection from the Flood Control Department as the entire area lay within the protected area. On December 3, 1976 vide Annexure II the non-judicial stamp papers were returned with a direction that the matter may be typed as provided in Form L and then to submit along with other documents. The appellant was also informed that further action will be taken only after the execution of the contract.

3. The case of the appellant is that he came to know that some dispute was going on regarding boundary between the States of U.P. and Haryana and the Dixit Award had allotted the major portion of the leasehold area of village Basantpur to U.P. The appellant on December 8, 1976 vide Annexure III wrote a letter to the Senior District Industries Officer that the contract be made effective from the date the area washanded over to the appellant after obtaining clearance and no objection certificate from Flood Control Department, and other departments as major portion of the land lay within protected area. The appellant was called upon on December 22, 1976 to sign the contract but the respondents did not deal with any of the objections raised by the appellant. On July 7, 1977 the appellant received the duly executed contract. However, neither the respondents obtained no objection certificate from the Executive Engineer (Flood and Irrigation) Canal Colony, Faridabad nor delivered the possession of the demised area to the appellant. The contract was made effective from May 26, 1977. The appellant vide Annexure IV dated July 8, 1977 returned the agreement again pointing out all the abovementioned facts and requested the Dire