Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
M. SADANANDASWAMY, BAHARUL ISLAM AND D. PATHAK, JJ.
Padmasing Deka -Appellant
Versus
Assam Board of Revenue and others -Respondent
Civil Rule No. 213 of 1970
Decided On : 03-01-1977
LAND REVENUE - RECOVERY AS ARREAR - MAUZADAR'S DEFAULT - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886, CHAP. V, SS. 63, 94, 144, 144-A, R. 130 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, O. 21, RR. 66, 68, 78.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Mauzadar, defaulted in depositing land revenues collected by him into the treasury. The Deputy Commissioner placed him under suspension and ordered the attachment and sale of his movable properties, including a gun and a rifle, for the recovery of the dues. The sale was held, and the gun and rifle were sold to respondents 3 and 4, respectively. The petitioner appealed to the Assam Board of Revenue, but the appeal was dismissed. He then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the sale and the order of the Board.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the amount of land revenue collected by a Mauzadar but not deposited by him with the Government can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Chap. V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. The Court also held that the sale of the gun and rifle was not void for non-compliance of Rr. 66 and 68 of O. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as the irregularities did not result in any substantial injury to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the amount of land revenue collected by a Mauzadar but not deposited by him with the Government can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Chap. V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886? 2. Whether the sale of the gun and rifle was void for non-compliance of Rr. 66 and 68 of O. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the amount of land revenue collected by a Mauzadar but not deposited by him with the Government can be recovered as an arrear of land revenue under Chap. V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, because: * Section 94 of the Regulation provides that any sum of money realizable under any enactment for the time being in force as if it were an arrear of land revenue. * Sections 144 and 144-A of the Regulation provide that all fees, rents, fines, costs and other money payable under the Regulation, or under rules made by the State Government under the Regulation, shall be recoverable as a land revenue, and that all moneys falling due to the Government for the use or occupation of land or water (whether the property of the Government or not) or on account of any products thereof and all moneys falling due to the Government under any grant, lease, security bond, or contract which provides that they shall be so recoverable, may be recovered under the Regulation in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. * Rule 130, framed under Chap. V of the Regulation, provides that every sum payable on account of land revenue shall fall due on the dates specified in the Rule shall be payable in such manner and in such instalments as prescribed therein. 2. The Court held that the sale of the gun and rifle was not void for non-compliance of Rr. 66 and 68 of O. 21 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, because: * Rule 78 of O. 21 provides that no irregularity in publishing or conducting the sale of moveable property shall vitiate the sale; but any person sustaining any injury by reason of such irregularity at the hand of any other person may institute a suit against him for compensation or (if such other person is the purchaser) for the recovery of the specific property and for compensation in default of such recovery. * The petitioner did not suffer any substantial injury as a result of the irregularities in the sale.
Final Decision: The Court rejected the petition and discharged the Rule.
BAHARUL ISLAM, J. :- The petitioner, Shri Padmasingh Deka, was the Mauzadar of Jagial Mouza in the district of Nowgong. He defaulted in depositing the land revenues collected by him into the treasury. The Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong (respondent No. 2) placed him under suspension and the order of suspension was communicated to him under letter No. NRT. 23/67/20 dated 8-7-1967 The total amount due from him was Rs. 38,636.37 p. The Deputy Commissioner asked the petitioner to clear the dues by 15-5-1967. On his failure to pay up the amount, a distress warrant was issued for attachment and sale of his movable properties, including one 12 bore SBBL gun and one 22 bore rifle. On 6-12-1967, a notice was issued fixing 13-12-1967 for the sale of the aforesaid gun and the rifle; but the sale did not take place on that date. A second notice, being Notification No. NRT. 23/67/58 dated 12-2-1968, was issued for the sale of the guns at public auction at 1 P. M. on 23-2-1968 at the Court Office of the Deputy Commissioner and in pursuance of that Notification the sale was held on 23-2-1968; but due to insufficient bid, the sale continued till the next day on which the SBBL gun was sold to respondent No. 3, at Rs. 1,110/- and the rifle was sold to respondent No. 4 at Rs. 1,500/-. The sales were confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner on 27-3-1968.
2. The amount due by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner was sought to be recovered as arrear of land revenue and the above-mentioned sale was held under Chap. V of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation (hereinafter called the Regulation).
3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assam Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1) (hereinafter called the Board) against the aforesaid sale of the gun and the rifle, but the appeal was dismissed.
4. The petitioner has filed this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the judgment and order of the Board and the sale held by the Deputy Commissioner.
5. This Rule came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. One of the questions involved in the case was whether the land revenue collected by a Mauzadar, who has defaulted in depositing the amount with the Government, can be realised as an arrear of land revenue under the Regulation. It was pointed out to the Bench that in two earlier decisions of this Court In the cases of Ghana Kanta Baruah v. Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong, C. R. No. 177 of 1968, disposed of on 21-5-1969 (Assam) and in Lakshmi Bhusan Barua v. Bakijai Officer, Sibsagar, Civil Rule No. 800 of 1970, disposed of on 28-6-1972, (reported in 1973 Assam LR 187) it was held that such amount could not be realised as an arrear of land revenue. It was submitted by tile learned Advocate General, Assam, appearing for the respondents that certain provisions of the Regulation, which had great bearing on the point and decisive of the question, were not brought to the notice of the Court and, as such, the above two decisions did not lay down the correct proposition of law and needed reconsideration. The Division Bench, therefore, passed the following order :
"As the case involves an important question of law regarding the procedure of recovering land revenue which has been collected by the Mauzadar but not deposited by him with the Government, and in view of the submission of the learned Advocate General, Assam, that this Courts decisions in Lakshmi Bhusan Barua v. Bakijai Officer, Sibsagar (1973 Assam LR 187) and Ghana Kanta Baruah V. Deputy Commissioner, Nowgong in Civil Rule No. 177 of 1968 disposed of on 21-5-69 and some other decisions of this Court on the point require reconsideration, this case is referred to a larger Bench."
This is how this case has come up before this Special Bench for disposal. The entire case is before us.
6. The "important question of law" that falls for decision by this Bench is, as stated above, whether an amount of land revenue, collected by a Mauzadar but not deposited by him with the Gove
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
