IMPORTANT POINT
Recovery proceedings must be based on lawful adjudication and adherence to principles of natural justice, not on arbitrary or unsubstantiated claims.

ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notices dated 25.02.1986; 01.08.1986; 06.07.1987; 05.11.1992; proclamation of sale notice dated 01.07.1999 so also the order of the Board of Revenue dated 30.06.2000.

2. Apprising the Court about the facts germane, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 25.02.1986, Mining Engineer issued a notice/order asking the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.87500/- on the allegation that when the Inspector of the Mining Department was patrolling on 30.11.1985, he found that one Kalu Ram s/o Amra was excavating the limestone with ten laborers and 50 ton limestone so excavated was lying at the site.

3. It was also alleged in the notice that the petitioner had transported 1200 ton limestone in vehicle No. RST 7979 to his cement factory.

4. Petitioner filed a reply/response dated 03.03.1986 to the said notice/order and pleaded that he did not know any Kalu Ram and that said Kaluram was not working under his instructions, while clearly asserting that the petitioner did not have any concern or nexus with him.

5. Another notice dated 01.08.1986 came to be issued by the Mining Engineer reiterating almost similar allegation with additional fact that the petitioner was a Director of Shreenath Cement Factory, Bharja to which 1250 ton of limestone was sent.

6. On receiving such notice on 09.08.1986, the petitioner replied that the vehicle No. RSY 7974 belong to Shreenath Cement Industries Pvt. Ltd., in which he is only a Director, while also highlighting that the returns/particulars of the said company have been examined and found correct and therefore, the amount in question cannot be recovered from him.

7. Another notice dated 06.07.1987 was issued to the petitioner directing him to pay an amount of Rs.96,250/- within 15 days or to appear in the office of Mining Engineer to put forth defence. On 20.07.1987, the petitioner appeared and filed his reply/representation and denied allegation of excavation and that he had employed anyone for such purpose.

8. After filing of the above reply, for 5 years, the petitioner did not hear anything from the respondents and on 05.11.1992, he came to receive a notice under Rule 24 read with section 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.96,250/-, failing which the amount would be recovered under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act.

9. Again for seven years, nothing happened and suddenly a proclamation of sale dated 01.07.1999 came to be published and petitioner’s agricultural land was put to distress.

10. The petitioner preferred a revision petition against above referred proclamation of sale notice dated 01.07.1999 before the Board of Revenue, wherein though an interim order was granted by the Board of Revenue, but the same was finally dismissed on 30.06.2000, as not maintainable.

11. Dismissal of the petitioner’s revision petition has led the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition.

12. It is admitted fact that pursuant to the interim order, the petitioner had deposited 25% of the due amount and by the time, the writ petition was considered for admission, the remaining amount had been deposited.

13. Learned counsel argued that the Mining Engineer had issued a notice with pre-meditated mind and as a matter of fact the same cannot be treated to be a notice inasmuch as the petitioner was called upon to deposit the amount (Rs. 87,500/-).

14. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents had proceeded to issue proclamation of sale without undertaking any adjudication of petitioner’s liability or without there being any determination of dues to be recovered from the petitioner. He submitted that in response to three notices that were issued by the respondents, the petitioner had given satisfactory reply and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Mining Engineer to consider the same and at least pass a speaking order fix