K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) The Forest Department of the State Government put up for auction plot No. 35 measuring 174 acres. The petitioner took that land on lease for a period of three years at the rate of Rs. 73 per acre. A sum of Rupees 1740.00 was paid as security money at the time of the sale. The payment of the sale price was to be made in instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 6184.00 was to be paid at the commencement of the cultivation or on 1st August 1967 whichever was earlier and the balance was to be paid in five instalments periodically. After the acceptance of the bid, an agreement was executed between the Forest Department and the petitioner. According to the petitioner when he went on the spot to cultivate the land, he found that the area of land available for cultivation of plot No. 35 was 130 acres instead of 174 acres. Possession over 44 acres of land was, however, delivered to the petitioner by September 1968. The petitioner committed default in payment of the instalments that fell due, finally a sum of Rs. 10,525.10 towards the lease money and Rs. 6029.20 on account of late fee calculated up to January 24, 1972, fell due which the petitioner was called upon to pay. On his failure to clear the dues, proceedings were initiated for recovery of the amounts as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the proceedings for recovery of the amounts due as arrears of land revenue.
(2.) It is not disputed that the petitioner failed to pay the instalments as and when they fell due and ultimately a sum of Rs. 16,554 was due against the petitioner when citation was issued on January 28, 1975. The only question for consideration before us is whether this amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act since this was not the amount due under the Act or any rule made under the Act or on account of the price of any forest produce, or of expenses incurred in the execution of the Act in respect of such produce. It was further urged that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner was in the nature of damages for the loss suffered by the Forest Department. Reliance in this connection was placed on State of U. P. v. Deewan Chand (1973 All LJ 309) . In our opinion the principle laid down in that case is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that case the lessee did not comply with the terms of the agreement. His lease was cancelled and the land was re-auctioned, but it fetched a lower price. The difference between the price fetched at the auction sale and the price for which the land was leased out was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The question posed by the Bench was whether the amount, which was claimed by the State Government against the lessee for having committed breach of the contract, was money payable under the agreement. The Bench observed that the amount sought to be recovered could not be held to be a claim for unpaid price and if the claim could not be termed as price, then the claim for deficit on re-sale would not be money payable to the Government and so it could not be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Section 82 of the Forest Act. Relying on the decision in Gobardhan Das Kailash Nath v. Collector (AIR 1956 All 721) the Bench held that if a contract for sale of a forest is cancelled and then the forest is re-auctioned, the claim for the deficit is in its true nature a claim for damages upon the re-sale. It was in this view of the matter that this Court held that the amount could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the present case what is sought to be recovered is the balance of the lease money which had fallen due against the petitioner together with the late fee calculated under the terms of the agreement. The sum claimed did not partake the nature of damages but was a claim simpliciter for unpaid price under the agreement. Clause 3 (a) of the agreement entered into by the parties provided. "In case of default by the contractor in the observance of the terms and conditions of the agreement, if the lease is re-auctioned and if there is any deficiency in the amount of the lease money or in the event the lease is not re-auctioned, the entire arrears or the balance amount can be recovered from the contractor by the District Magistrate as arrears of land revenue." There was thus an agreement between the parties that if the amount of lease money fell due, it could be recovered as arrears of land revenue. This amount could be recovered under S. 3 (1) (d) of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, which provides that where any person is party to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government or the Corporation shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue, if any default is committed in complying with the terms of agreement. The existence of an agreement to that effect is not disputed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the citation reference was made to the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1965, and since that Act was held to be void, the recovery proceeding was vitiated. There is no substance in the contention. When the amount was sought to be recovered U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. 23 of 1972) had been passed replacing the Act of 1965. A wrong reference to the number or year of the Act would not render the proceeding invalid if the recovery proceeding could be validly initiated under the Act then in force. In our opinion the proceeding for recovery of the amount claimed against the petitioner is valid and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.;