PATEL PARSHOTAMDAS CHATURDAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the original plaintiff of the Regular Assistant Judge there. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judge (SD) Nadiad, who had dismissed the same. The present appellant's appeal No. 157 of 1970 in the Court of the District Judge, Kaira at Nadiad also was dismissed by the learned Assistant Judge there. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgments and decrees the present appellant had filed the above mentioned appeal.

(2.) This appeal had come up before me a few months ago and I had fully heard it, but could not deliver the judgment and as the matter was old, I directed that the matter may be placed before the single Judge who was dealing with the Second Appeal. However, the said matter could not be taken up and it is again notified on my Board when I am sitting as single judge to deal with Second Appeals. Though the matter is on Board for about a fortnight, the learned Advocate Mr. A. F. Patel for the appellant has not so far appeared. In these circumstances, I proceed to deliver the judgment, because the matter was fully heard by me on earlier occasion.

(3.) The plaintiff-appellant's case before the trial court was that he was a cultivator of land bearing Survey No. 273 of Sihunj village of Dholka Taluk. The suit field admeasures six acres. In the cultivating season 1950-60, he had grown tobacco in the field. On 18th November, 1959 he had made a requisite declaration about his having grown tobacco on the land and in that declaration he had given his estimate that 1400 pounds of tobacco was likely to be yielded at the end of the season. However, the season was not favourable and consequently there was no possibility of reaping the expected harvest. On 30th December, 1959, an officer of the Excise Department had visited the field and had estimated that the yield per acre was likely to be 300 pounds and the necessary note also had come to be made by that officer in the prescribed register known as the 'survey-book'. However, the Respondent No. 6 had in collusion with the original defendant No. 2 (the defendant No. 2, the Sub-Inspector of the Excise Department was residing as a tenant in the plaintiff's premises and had fallen out with him on the plaintiff's demand of rent from him) had put up a false that he had tilled the land and grown tobacco in three acres out of six acres of the field, and so the defendant No. 6 cut the leaves also. The matter was taken to the Police by the plaintiff in the presence of the Central Excise Officers and the defendant No. 6, in order to avoid the breach of peace, the Police attached the laid crop and with the consent of the parties and it was delivered to the officers of the Central Excise Department. Ultimately the Mamlatdar, the competent authority, had held, the defendant No. 6 to be a trespasser and impostor. The result was that the goods seized by the Police under the panchnama dated 26th February, 1960 were ordered to be delivered to the plaintiff and on or about 25th August, 1960, the goods were delivered to the plaintiff. At the time of delivery, the assessment was made and the plaintiff had paid the requisite duty and the goods had been delivered to him. However, therefore at the instigation of the defendant No. 2, the department had issued a demand notice to the plaintiff and asked him to pay additional duty on the tobacco weighing 1208 pounds alleging that on the earlier occasion the plaintiff had paid duty on tobacco raised only in 3 acres of land and that he had clandestinely disposed of the tobacco raised on the remaining three acres of land to which no claim was made by the defendant No. 6. The proceedings in that connection had started and the defendant No. 3, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Nadiad had ordered the plaintiff to pay to the department duty on 1208 pounds of tobacco. As per the Rules, the plaintiff had preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Baroda, who had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the plaintiff had not paid up the amount covered by the order under appeal as a condition precedent to the hearing of the appeal. The plaintiff had then carried the matter to the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance by way of a revision application. The department, i.e. the Secretary to the Government of India modified the order of the Assistant Collector, Nadiad and directed the plaintiff to pay the duty on 800 pounds of tobacco instead of 1208 pounds. In other words, he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 957.97 as a duty. The plaintiff thereafter had filed the present suit for a declaration that the order passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Excise Collector Baroda and modified by the Government of India in revision were illegal and void and the Government of India had no authority at law to take steps to realise the said sum.