M THANGAVEL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR TRICHIRAPPALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 4549 of 2005 was an employee of Trichirappalli sarvodhaya Sangh / fourth respondent herein. While he was working as a Manager in the Manufacturing Unit of the said Sangh at Srirangam, certain short fall of stocks were noticed in the audit for the year 1999 - 2000. A sum of rs. 6,60,785. 55 was sought to be recovered by invoking Section 3 (1) of the revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central Act I of 1890) (hereinafter referred to as "the RR Act" ). That certificate was issued by the District Collector, trichirappalli to the District Collector, Sivagangai, as the property of the petitioner situated at Sivagangai. The said proceedings of the District collector is in question on the ground that the amount being only the alleged shortage of stocks, it cannot be considered to be an arrear of land revenue to enable the District Collector to invoke the provision of Section 3 (1) of the RR act. In any event, there being no determination of the liability, particularly with reference to the quantum, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D. Sasikumar, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. P. Arun Jayatram, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent Sangh.

(3.) IN response to the contentions of the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the petitioner has misappropriated the amount, while he was working as an employee of the Sangh and he has given a letter on 20. 01. 2003, accepting the liability. Insofar as the power of the District Collector is concerned, he would submit that in the decision reported in THE KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION. . VS. . M. S. SRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS (A. I. R. 1974 PATNA 313), such invocation of the provision of the RR Act has been accepted by the Court and therefore, the proceedings are valid. He would also submit that Section 36 (4) (b) of the Tamil nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 empowers the District Collector to recover the amount in question as an arrear of land revenue. Hence, the impugned order cannot be found fault.