CHATURSINGH THAKUR Vs. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR DURG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance of the Revenue Recovery Certificate purported to have been issued by the Additional Collector, Durg, under section 13 (1)of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Annexure 'a'), proceedings have been initiated for recovery of Rs. 82,900. 30 Nps. against the petitioner in the court of Additional Tahsildar, Durg. The Additional Tahsildar has issued the demand notice vide Annexure 'b' and has attached lands and houses said to have been purchased benami by the petitioner in the name of his wife, and other close relations by name Saraswatibai, Sudhabai and Sarjabai. The petitioner has some to this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the recovery Certificate and the proceedings initiated on its basis.

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated : The petitioner was a Lower Division Clerk in the Land Diversion Section of the Collectorate, Durg. According to the respondents' Return, one of the duties assigned to the petitioner was to prepare bills. He was thus in charge of the Accounts and Establishment. During the period between 1-3-1972 to 26-6-1973, the total sanctioned strength of Chain men and peons was ten i. e. 8+2 and for the period between 27-6-1973 to 30-11-1974, the strength was six, i. e. 4+2. The petitioner prepared bills showing the strength much above the sanctioned number and instead of routing the bills through the Superintendent, Land records (Diversion), submitted them directly to the Officer-in-Charge i. e. Deputy Collector and then got them passed by the Treasury Officer. The treasury Officer, on the belief of correctness of the bills or on representations made by the petitioner, without verifying the sanctioned strength, passed the bills as submitted. The District Nazir, one Dhansingh, as the story goes, was in league with the petitioner. He drew the amount from the Bank on the basis of those false bills and instead of disbursing the amount himself, got the same disbursed through the petitioner. The Nazir and the petitioner jointly managed to forge bogus receipts for bogus persons in whose names the bills were prepared and thus embezzled during the relevant period as per casual checking a sum of Rs. 80055. 50 nps. (In the Supplementary return filed by the respondents, the auditors, who checked the accounts, found the defalcation swelling to Rs. '4,51,517. 65 Nps. ).

(3.) A report was lodged at the police station and investigation is reported to be pending. The petitioner was put under suspension. The petitioner, as the enquiries conducted by Officers revealed, had purchased property benami in the names of his wife, brother, brother's wife and mother. The assets so collected were disproportionate to the legitimate income of the petitioner and even that of the relations mentioned. It was evident that the property was purchased out of the defalcated money. Lest, the petitioner dissipated the property, the Collector issued the Revenue Recovery certificate which he could do under the provisions of the Public Accountants' defaults Act, 1850. The petitioner, according to the respondents, squarely fell within the definition of the expression "public Accountant" as given in the Act. The Act provided for recovery of the defalcated amount as if it was arrears of land revenue. The provisions of the M. P. Land Revenue code, 1959, could, therefore, be invoked for the purposes of such recovery.