RAJAKUMAR BHARGVATSARAN Vs. COLLECTOR OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellant in person and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent . In this Appeal, the Appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dt. 21-7-1989 passed by the learned single Judge in W. P.No. 7030 of 1989. In the writ petition the appellant challenged the notice No. B. 3/41141/89 dt. 11-4-1989, raising several questions of law, principal questions being (1) the respondent could not have issued the impugned order after a period of 14 1/2 years. (2) the respondent had no authority to issue a notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. The learned Single Judge in the order under appeal has stated that S. 52 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 is valid and in that view he dismissed the writ petition.

(2.) The appellant in his arguments reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. In his arguments he elaborated in support of his contentions. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted, that the impugned notice was given enabling the appellant to make payment and on his failure to make such payment action would be taken for recovery of the amount demanded under the said notice as arrears of land revenue. On the other had, the appellant submitted that the plain reading of the impugned notice shows that it is a demand made as if the respondent had authority in law and that such payment could be demanded even after lapse of several years. We have just now disposed Writ Appeal No. 991 of 1990 involving similar questions. The only difference is, in that case notice was not issued by the respondent and before issue of such notice the appellant had challenged the proposed action of the respondent. In this case the impugned notice is issued. Learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that it is open to the appellant to reply to the impugned notice within a given time raising the contentions that are available to him, so that the respondent could decide on that and proceed in accordance with law. He also wanted us to say that the respondent had authority to issue such a notice. We are not inclined to express one way or the other on the respective contentions of the parties in the view we are proposing to take. It is open to the appellant to reply to the impugned notice raising all the contentions that are available including the question of limitation as well as the authority or jurisdiction of the respondent to issue such a notice, within a given time so that the respondent may consider the objections raised by the appellant and then proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

(3.) In the result, for the reasons stated, we pass the following Order :-1. Writ Appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set aide. 3. Appellant to file his objections within two weeks from today to the impugned notice. 4. Respondent shall consider all objections that may be filed by the appellant within two week and he shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law. 5. No costs.