Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Patel, J.
Appellants: Prabhakar Vishnu Naik
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India
A.F.A.D. No. 305 of 1969 Decided On: 26.06.1969
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.A. Tambe, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: S.C. Pratap, Asstt. Govt. Pleader
REVENUE RECOVERY ACT - CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY COLLECTOR - VALIDITY - JURISDICTION OF TRIAL COURT - PROCLAMATION OF SALE - VALIDITY - DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT CLAIMED - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a former Sub-Post Master, was convicted for misappropriation of funds and sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment. After serving his sentence, the Superintendent of Post Offices wrote to the Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs requesting recovery of the misappropriated amount as arrears of land revenue. The Mamlatdar issued a proclamation attaching the plaintiff's property for sale. The plaintiff filed a suit challenging the legality of the attachment and proclamation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The trial court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the suit and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. The appellate court had already determined that the trial court had jurisdiction, and this finding was conclusive. 2. The certificate issued by the Collector under Section 3(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was valid, and the proclamation of sale issued in pursuance of this certificate was also valid. 3. The Mamlatdar had the authority to issue the proclamation of sale under the administrative order delegating powers to him by the Collector. 4. The plaintiff's contention that the proclamation was issued without authority was not supported by evidence. 5. The plaintiff was not required to deposit the amount claimed from him in court as a condition for maintaining the suit since he was only challenging the legality of the proclamation and not the liability itself.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the suit. 2. Whether the certificate issued by the Collector under Section 3(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was valid. 3. Whether the proclamation of sale issued in pursuance of the certificate was valid. 4. Whether the Mamlatdar had the authority to issue the proclamation of sale. 5. Whether the plaintiff was required to deposit the amount claimed from him in court as a condition for maintaining the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appellate court's finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the suit was conclusive and could not be reopened by the lower appellate court. 2. The certificate issued by the Collector was valid as it was issued by the appropriate authority and no inquiry was required to be held before its issuance. 3. The proclamation of sale was valid as it was issued in pursuance of the certificate and the Mamlatdar had the authority to issue it under the administrative order delegating powers to him by the Collector. 4. The plaintiff's contention that the proclamation was issued without authority was not supported by evidence. 5. The plaintiff was not required to deposit the amount claimed from him in court as a condition for maintaining the suit since he was only challenging the legality of the proclamation and not the liability itself.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs throughout. The interim injunction in the Civil Application was vacated, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the Union.
2. Thereafter, the Superintendent of the Post Offices, Nanded wrote to the Superintendent of Posts and Telegraphs, Ahmed-nagar saying that an amount of Rs. 2116.31 was due from the plaintiff and it should be recovered as arrears of land revenue, as the plaintiff had properties in that District, The Superintendent apparently sent this letter to the Mamlatdar on June 20, 1961 requiring him to make the payment by realisation of the said amount. The Mamlatdar called upon the plaintiff to pay the amount intimating that if the amount was not paid his property would be attached. In the meantime, the Superintendent of the Posts and Telegraphs at Nanded sent a letter to the Collector of Osmanabad requesting him to send a certificate to the Collector of Ahmed-nagar for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 2625.56 being the balance of Rs. 2926,58 after recovery of Rs. 300/- from the surety. Ex. 31 is the certificate issued by the Collector, Osmanabad to the Collector, Ahmed-nagar in respect of the same. The Mamlatdar received the certificate (Ex. 31) and thereafter on August 1, 1963 he issued the proclamation at Ex. 52 attaching the plaintiffs half share in Survey No. 5/2, situated at village Brahmanagaon in that District. Thereafter a date for sale was also fixed.
3. The plaintiff then filed the present suit for a declaration that the Mamlatdars order and the proclamation were illegal and contrary to law and the proceedings, therefore, be quashed.
4. It appears that the learned trial Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that He had no jurisdiction in the matter as the alleged misappropriation had taken place at Nanded. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the District Court, which, having considered all the aspects of the matter, held that the trial Court had jurisdiction to deal with the suit and it accordingly remitted the matter back to the trial Court for hearing and decision. After remand the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar held that the order was bad and declared that the property of the plaintiff was not liable to attachment and sale according to the certificate (Ex. 31). He also granted an injunction against the defendant. From this judgment the Union of India appealed to the District Court. The learned Joint Judge, Ahmednagar, held that the trial Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
