DEPUTY TAHSILDAR Vs. VELAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Kerala jointly along with the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Udumpanchola and the Village Officer, Chathurangapara has preferred this appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing O.P. No. 4099 of 1975 and quashing the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the respondent herein as per Exts. P1, P3 and P4 for realisation of arrears of agricultural income tax payable by one Veeranna Thevar for the assessment years 196869, 196970 and 197071.

(2.) An extent of 6 acres 4 cents comprised in Survey No. 62/2 and 4 of Chathurangapara Village is property registered in the name of the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The said property had been leased out by the writ petitioner in favour of two persons by name Thanka Pandian and Nakaraja Nadar as per a registered lease deed dated 18th June 1966. The right of those lessees devolved on one Veeranna Thevar by virtue of a transaction of assignment. Veeranna Thevar had cultivated the property with cardamom and he was assessed to agricultural income tax for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. A total amount of Rs. 5,010.98 was payable by Veeranna Thevar to the State by way of arrears of agricultural income tax in respect of the aforementioned three years. Veeranna Thevar, later on, surrendered the property to the writ petitioner on 5th January 1975. When the attempts made by the department to realise the arrears of tax from Veeranna Thevar proved futile, revenue recovery action was initiated against the petitioner as per the demand notice evidenced by Ext. P1 dated 8th August 1975 under S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Ext. P1 states that the said demand was made on her in her capacity as the holder of the lands comprised in patta No. 146 in respect of which the liability for agricultural income tax had arisen. The petitioner filed an objection before the Tahsildar, Udumpanchola submitting that she was not a defaulter in respect of the tax liability referred to in Ext. P1 and hence the action initiated against her under the Revenue Recovery Act was illegal and wholly unjustified. Along with the said representation she produced a tax clearance certificate - Ext. P2 - Issued to her by the Additional Agricultural Income Tax Officer, Devicolam, wherein it was certified that no arrears by way of agricultural income tax and surcharge were outstanding against her as on the date of issuance thereof, namely 14th August 1975. Apparently the contention put forward by the petitioner did not find acceptance in the hands of the Tahsildar, as is clear from the fact that further proceedings followed against her in the shape of Exts. P3 and P4 dated 8th August 1975 and 26th August 1975. By Ext. P3 the petitioner was informed by the Village Officer, Chathurangapara that if she did not remit the sum of Rs. 5,010.98 representing the agricultural income tax arrears before 15th August 1975, her land will be brought to sale by public auction without delay. By the communication Ext. P4 the petitioner was informed by the same authority that her cardamom land had been taken possession into Government custody with effect from 26th August 1975 and that the petitioner was prohibited from collecting any crops from the said estate. Thereupon the petitioner came up to this Court seeking to quash Exts. P1, P3 and P4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned revenue recovery proceedings evidenced by Exts. P1, P3 and P4, without prejudice to such proceedings as the respondents may take in accordance with law. The legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge are under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants relied mainly on S.23 of the Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - for short the Act -for sustaining the legality of the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act. S.23 reads: