J.K.Tandon, J. - (1.) The above petition has contained more than one relief and also a number of facts but in view of the fact that the relief asked is now confined to the prayer that the respondents be debarred from proceeding to realise the sum of Rs. 1,500/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, I shall state such of them only as bear on the question.
(2.) The petitioner is a forest contractor. The respondents are the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Chief Conservator of Forests, U.P., the Conser- vator of Forests, U.P., Eastern Circle and the Divisional Forest Officer, Bahraich Division. The Divisional Forest Officer sold by auction the right to remove timber from lot No. 2 in com-partment No. 21 (c) in Motipur Block in the Bahraich Division on the 21st August, 1958. The petitioner having offered the highest bid of Rs. 15,000/- the same was knocked down in his favour. In accordance with the conditions governing the sale the petitioner also deposited a- sum ot Rs. 1,500/-, being 10 per cent of the sale price as security deposit. After the sale had been knocked down and the security deposit also made, a controversy arose between him and the Forest Department about the correctness etc. of the an-nouncement describing the property sold as ac-cording to the former an incorrect description had been given, i.e. the size etc. of the trees on the spot was not in accordance with the specifi-cations. The petitioner has produced copies of the correspondence started between him and the Forest Department in this regard. It is not ne-cessary to refer to it in detail but suffice it to mention that the position taken by him was that in so far as the property offered for sale was not of the description published he was entitled to withdraw from the contract. This he did by his letter dated the 5th of September, 1958 (Annexure 3). The following quotation from it will be useful: "In general auction held on 21-8-1958 I pur-chased Lot No. 2, Compartment No. 21 C and plot No. 1 of Nishangarh Range for Rs. 15,000/-for which I deposited Rs. 1,500/- towards its se-curity. In this connection I beg to say that when I went to the spot I found the position of the lot otherwise than the position given in the Sale notice. Besides the marking of the trees is also incorrect and the allotment of Sleepers is much above than the produce. "Therefore, under the above circumstances I would request that the sale price of the lot may kindly be reduced and the allotment of sleepers may be cancelled. In case your honour is not prepared to do, this application may be treated as an intimation that I shall no longer have any concern with this lot and my security of Rs. 1,500 may be refunded to me''. Three days later the Divisional Forest Officer sent tho following reply: "Before your resignation is accepted you will have to deposit 20 per cent security which will be confiscated and besides this if after re-auction there is difference in the sale price, you will have to make good the loss. "You are therefore warned to start the word after you are asked to do so otherwise necessary action under rules will be taken against you. Please note carefully". The controversy continued and ultimately on the 17th of October, 1958 the petitioner sent, what he has claimed to be, an unconditional resigna-tion from the contract asking at the same time the amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited by him to be refunded. On the 24th October, 1958, the Conservator wrote back to him expressing his inability to concede to his demand. The follow-ing letter, a copy whereof is Annexure 11, in the above connection is again material. "Kindly refer to para 1 of this office letter No. 12875/KC/66-BKCH/1958, dated October 24, 195S, in which I have expressed my inability to reduce the sale price. "2. Since you want to resign from the lot your case falls under the heading (Tyag Pattra Ke Niyam) of the General Sale Rules and action is being taken accordingly". The material part of this document is paragraph 2 wherein the petitioner had been warned that in view of his resignation his case shall fall under the heading (Tyag Pattra Ke Niyam) of the Gene-ra! Sale Rules according to which action would he taken against him. On November 29, 1959, soon after the Divisional Forest Officer wrote to the petitioner that his resignation had been ac-cepted under the General Sale Rules. He was further told that he had deposited Rs. 1,500/-only as security and that it was necessary for him to deposit another Rs. 1,500/- to complete the 20 per cent of the sale price.
(3.) The amount of Rs. 1,500/- which the res-pondents are seeking to realise from the peti-tioner as arrears of land revenue is the balance of 20 per cent on payment of which the resignation was liable to be accepted after deducting the se-curity deposit initially made by the petitioner. .;