The amount claimed by the Government was damages for breach of contract and could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue under S. 82 of the Indian Forest Act or R. 30 of the Rewa Forest Contract Rules.

AGARWALA, J. :- These are two connected appeals from a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court upon petitions presented under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The facts briefly stated are these.

2. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Vindhya Pradesh invited sealed tenders for the sale of lac and lac products in the forests belonging to that state. In the notice it was stated that the tenders were to be submitted by the end of January 1952. The appellant firm which carries on business at Mirzapur submitted tenders on 31-1-1952. The tenders were opened the same day and the appellants tenders were accepted by the Divisional Forest Officer of Vindhya Pradesh.

One of the terms announced at the time of the opening of the tenders was that 25% of the price shall be deposited on the acceptance of the tender and the balance was to be paid within one month.

The tenders were in respect of eight lots, six of Umaria division, one of Rewa division and one of Ghhatturpur division. The price of the six lots of Umaria division was Rs. 3,29,959/6/- and the price of the lot of Chhatturpur division was Rs. 7,022/8/-, As we are not concerned with the Rewa lot, it is not necessary to mention anything further about it.

The appellant was to deposit 1/4th of the total price, but he deposited only Rs. 7,000/- in respect of the six lets of Umaria division and Rs. 500/- in respect of the lot of Chhatturpur division. It is alleged on behalf of the respondent, the Collector of Mirzapur, that because the appellant did not possess the Whole of the 25% of the sale price, he asked for one months time to deposit the same which was allowed to him.

The remaining amount of 25% was however not deposited by the appellant and on 7-3-1952 the Divisional Forest Officer wrote to the appellant telling him that the lots will be re-sold on 14-3-1952, unless by that date the balance of the 25% of the price was deposited. The amount not having been deposited, the six lots of Umaria were resold on 14-3-1952 for a sum of Rs. 1,83,400/- leaving a deficit of over Rs. 1,39,000/-. The lot of Chhatturpur was resold on 16-7-1952 for a certain sum, leaving a deficit of about Rs. 3816/-.

The Divisional Forest Officer thereafter sent a demand certificate for the two amounts to the Collector of Mirzapur for being recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. It was alleged by the appellant that in the case of the amount due upon the six lots of Umaria division, the Collector sent the Tahsildar to demand the amount from the appellant and in the case of the amount due in respect of the lot of Chhatturpur division, notice of arrest was issued against the appellant.

3. The appellant thereupon filed two writ petitions in this Court, one being Civil Misc. Writ No. 349 of 1952 in respect of the six lots of Umaria division and the other being Civil Misc. Writ No. 90 of 1953 in respect of the lot of Chhatturpur division praying for the issue of a direction or a writ commanding the Collector, Mirzapur, not to proceed to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue from the appellant and further asking him to inform the Divisional Forest Officer Umaria division that the amount was not realisable as arrears of land revenue. There was a further prayer in Writ No. 90 of 1953 to the effect that the demand certificate be quashed.

4. The case for the petitioner was firstly that there was no completed contract between the parties and secondly that the money due was not recoverable as arrears of land revenue. On behalf of the Collector of Mirzapur it was pleaded that there was a completed contract between the parties and that the balance of the consideration of the sales was recoverable as arrears of land revenue under S. 82, Indian Forest Act read with R. 30 of the Rewa Forest Contract Rules.

5. The learned Single Judge accepted the contentions raised on behalf of the respondent and by a common judgment dismissed the petitions. Against that judgment the petitioner has filed these specia