JAGDISH PARSHAD BANSAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present two appeals are filed by the plaintiffappellant dissatisfied with the dismissal of a suit whereby the trial Court refused to decree the suit and held that the forfeiture of the security deposit of the advance money and of the 1 st instalment was legal. The trial Court, however, decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant to the extent that it restrained the defendant-respondents from recovering the remaining amount of contract money from the plaintiff-appellant with interest as arrears of land revenue.

(2.) Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 11.11.1988, two appeals were preferred-one by the State and the other by the plaintiff-appellant and the lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal of the State, held that the State is entitled to recover the balance amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The lower appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court declining him the declaration that the forfeiture of the earnest money and 1 st instalment paid was illegal, and thus, dismissed the suit in totality.

(3.) The facts in brief are that the plaintiff-appellant had participated in a public auction for the grant of salt-petre contract of village Chandana, Tehsil Kaithal, Distt.Kurukshetra, being the highest bidder for Rs.25,100/-. In pursuance of the said auction held on 17.02.1979, the plaintiff-appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.6,275/- as advance money and Rs.6,275/- as security at the fall of hammer. Accordingly, the State signed the agreement at Kurukshetra on 29.03.1985 (Exhibit P2) through General Manager, District Industries Centre, Kurukshetra. As per the agreement, the plaintiff-appellant was to deposit the balance amount on or before 15.05.1979 and the term of the contract was to run till 31.10.1979. The said amount was not deposited which led to issuance of notice dated 11.06.1979 for termination of the contract and eventually, the contract was terminated on 17.10.1979 (Ex.P5). In pursuance of the termination order, the amount deposited by the plaintiff-appellant was forfeited and recovery proceedings were initiated under the Land Revenue Act which is the subject matter of challenge of the present suit.