SHIV KUMAR SONI Vs. COLLECTOR HAMIRPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the petitioner has prayed for grant of fol lowing reliefs: (i) Issue writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceeding against the petitioner arising out of citation notice dated 14-2-1992 issued by Respondent No. 2 in persuance of recovery notice/demand notice dated 20-11-1991 issued by Respondent No. 3. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from realising the amount shown in the demand notice and citation notice dated 7-2-1992 from the petitioner, (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 not to realise amount under citation notice dated 7-2-1992.

(2.) HIS pleading is as follows: He was granted a Theka for Rs. 75,000 for a period of one year i. e. , 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1991, in the auction held by the Respondent No. 3 for collection of Tahbazari in the town of Kulpahar, District Hamirpur. He deposited the auction money with the Respondent No. 3 after the conclusion of final bid. He started realizing the Tah bazari in the town of Kulpahar. The State of Uttar Pradesh, vide Government Order, abolished realization of Tahbazari all over the State. The Respondent No. 3 in pur suance of the Government Order can celled the Theka of the Petitioner vide its order dated 1-12-1991 without any notice or information to the petitioner. Through a news-item/public not ice dated 4-12-1990 in Prachin Jyoti, a local weekly Hindi paper, published from Ajnar, Hamirpur, the order of cancellation of his Theka was published directing the public not to pay the Tahbazari to him or his agent. (A Pho tostat copy of the said news-item is An-nexure-1 to the writ petition ). After the aforesaid publication, he moved an ap plication to the Respondent No. 3 that since his Theka has been cancelled on ac count of abolition of Tahbazari he is not liable to pay the remaining amount of auc tion money. The Respondent No. 3 sent a notice dated 20-11-1991 to him for pay ment of Rs. 23,700 towards the balance amount of the auction money within a week otherwise coercive steps would be initiated for recovery of the said amount. (A true copy of the said notice dated 20-11 -1991 is Annexure-4 to the writ petition, although in the writ petition it is wrongly mentioned as Annexure-2 ). After receipt of the said Recovery Notice, he moved an application on 5-12-1991 to the Respon dent No. 3 that he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari from 1-12-1990 to 31-3-1991 on account of cancellation of the Tahbazari in pursuance of the Govern ment Order. (A true copy of the applica tion dated 5-12-1991 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, although it is wrongly men tioned as Annexure-3 in the writ petition ). As no order was passed by the Respondent No. 3 on his aforesaid application then he moved another application dated 13-1-1992 stating therein that he was not liable for payment of Rs. 23,700 towards the auction money, as he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari for no fault of his own. (A true copy of the said application dated 13-1-1992 is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, although wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as Annexure-4 ). Respon dent No. 3 without deciding his applica tions dated 5-12-1991 and 13-1-1992 sent the Recovery to the Respondent No. 1 for realization of Rs. 23,700 as arrears of land revenue and the Respondent No. 1 in turn ,has sent the Recovery to the Tehsildar, the Respondent No. 2, for realization as ar rears of land revenue. The Respondent No. 2 has issued Citation Notice for recovery of amount of Rs. 26,077 i. e. , Rs. 23,700 as unpaid amount plus Rs. 2,370 as collection charges and Rs. 7 as cost of notice. A true copy of the Citation Notice is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari by the Respondent No. 3.

(3.) WE are of the view that in the interest of justice the aforesaid two ap plications of the Petitioner dated 5-12-1991 and 13-1-1992 were required to be disposed of by the Respondent No. 3 before proceeding to realize the aforesaid amount or if the said applications had already been disposed of by the Respon dent No. 3 then he was required to intimate that fact to the petitioner.