Forest auction recovery: section 82 allows deficiency recovery as arrears of land revenue despite no Article 299 contract.

A forest sale notice issued by or under the authority of a Forest Officer can create a statutory liability for deficiency on re-auction, and section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 permits recovery of that deficiency as arrears of land revenue even without a contract complying with Article 299 of the Constitution. The 10% earnest money condition was treated as waivable for the Government's benefit by the authorised auction officer, so bids were not invalid for non-deposit of that amount. The 25% deposit requirement arose only after acceptance of the bid and was not a condition precedent to bid validity. Recovery under section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1958 was not available absent an Article 299-compliant contract.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the condition requiring deposit of 10% earnest money before bidding was waived by the authorised officer; (ii) Whether failure to deposit 25% immediately after acceptance of the bid rendered the bid invalid; (iii) Whether the recovery of deficiency on re-auction could be sustained in the absence of a contract complying with Article 299 of the Constitution and under section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1958; (iv) Whether section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 authorised recovery of the deficiency as arrears of land revenue.

Issue (i): Whether the condition requiring deposit of 10% earnest money before bidding was waived by the authorised officer.

Analysis: The condition was treated as one for the benefit of the Government and was capable of being waived by the officer conducting the auction if he had authority to do so. The return specifically stated that the Divisional Forest Officer waived the condition at the bidder's request and had the requisite administrative authority. In the absence of any rejoinder, that statement was accepted, and the officer who framed the sale conditions was also entitled to modify or waive them.

Conclusion: The condition was validly waived, and the bids were not invalid on the ground of non-deposit of 10% earnest money.

Issue (ii): Whether failure to deposit 25% immediately after acceptance of the bid rendered the bid invalid.

Analysis: The requirement to deposit 25% was held to arise only after a bidder had become a successful bidder, that is, after acceptance of the bid. It was not a condition precedent to the validity of the bid itself.

Conclusion: Non-deposit of 25% did not invalidate the bid.

Issue (iii): Whether the recovery of deficiency on re-auction could be sustained in the absence of a contract complying with Article 299 of the Constitution and under section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1958.

Analysis: The bid-sheet did not satisfy the constitutional requirements of a contract under Article 299 because it was not shown to be expressed in the name of the Governor or executed by an authorised person. On that footing, section 155(b) could not be invoked, since it applies only to moneys due under a grant, lease, or contract recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Conclusion: The recovery could not be supported under Article 299 or section 155(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1958.

Issue (iv): Whether section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 authorised recovery of the deficiency as arrears of land revenue.

Analysis: Mahua flowers were forest produce, and the auction was conducted under a forest sale notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer. The notice contained conditions under which breach of payment obligations would lead to re-auction and liability for deficiency. Section 82 permits recovery of money payable to the State Government under the terms of a notice relating to the sale of forest produce by auction issued by or under the authority of a Forest Officer. The provision was construed as creating a statutory liability enforceable even without a formally executed contract, and the reasoning was supported by the Supreme Court's approach to similar recovery provisions.

Conclusion: Section 82 authorised recovery of the deficiency as arrears of land revenue.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's challenge failed because the auction conditions were binding, the lack of an Article 299-compliant contract did not defeat the statutory recovery, and the deficiency was recoverable under the forest statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a forest sale notice issued by or under the authority of a Forest Officer creates a liability for deficiency on re-auction, section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 permits recovery as arrears of land revenue notwithstanding the absence of a contract complying with Article 299 of the Constitution.

---