Contracts not in proper form are not void, as the State Government has the power to ratify them.

( 1 ) THIS is a Letters Patent appeal against the order of Naik J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 197 of 1956. The order in this appeal shall also dispose of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 92, 142 and 168, all of 1956. In all these cases the right of the State Government to realize the dues under forest contracts as arrears of land revenue is in question.

( 2 ) AS a result of the coming into force of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1950 (No. 1 of 1951), the village forests vested in the State with effect from 31 March 1951. The right to propagate and collect lac in some of the forests of Balaghat district was auctioned by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 during September and October 1951, and the bids of the present appellant Mulamchand for Rs. 69,500/-, and of the petitioners of Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 142 and 168 of 1956, namely, Keshrimal of the former and Shivlal of the latter petition, for Rs. 34,500/- and Rs. 11,250/- respectively, being the highest, were accepted. In these cases, separate indentures were executed by the present appellant and the other petitioners, on the one hand, and the Governor through the Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, on the other.

( 3 ) IN Miscellaneous Petition No. 92 of 1956, the petitioner Chandulal acquired the right to propagate and collect lac, but no document was executed to evidence the transaction. He alleged that the right was disposed of at the auction held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat, when his bid for Rs. 5,600/- which was the highest, was accepted for the years 1952-53, 195354 and 1954-55. The case of the State Government, on the other hand, was that the right was settled by private treaty for the years 1951-52, 1952-53 and 1953-54 between the petitioner and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Balaghat. The case set up by the 'state Government was not disputed by the petitioner for purposes of arguments.

( 4 ) THE amounts for which the rights were disposed of were payable in three annual instalments. The present appellant paid in all Rs. 11,000/- and Rs 58,000/- were due by him. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 92 of 1956, the amount paid was Rs. 1866/10/9 and the balance due was Rs. 3,733/5/3. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 142 of 1956, Rs. 11,166/- only were due and the balance of Rs. 23,334/- was paid off. In Miscellaneous Petition No. 168 of 1956, only the first instalment of Rs. 3,750/- was paid, and the remaining two instalments of Rs. 3,750/- each were due. The amounts remaining due were sought to be realised as arrears of land revenue by the revenue authorities under Section 225 (c) of the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, and since the objections of the present appellant and the other petitioners to this method of recovery were disallowed and their appeals and revisions up to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, were dismissed, they moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition of the present appellant was heard by Naik J. and dismissed by him in limine. He has, therefore, come up in appeal, which has been heard along with the other petitions.

( 5 ) THE reasons why the remaining amounts were not paid have been stated by the present appellant and the other petitioners in their petitions. Shortly, they allege that they could not work some parts of the forests on account of the obstruction put up by the tenants and the ex-malguzars and in some parts they could not raise lac for want of pains trees, and also that they could not make any profit by sale of the lac that they could gather due to the sharp fall in the price. However, these allegations were controverted and therefore, were not pressed in support of the petitions. The points that were urged are:

(1) That as the Indian Forest Act, 1927, does not apply to the forests that vested in the State under Act No. 1 of 1951, the action under Section