SANKARLAL SARDA Vs. STATE OK ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHATTERJEE, J.-These are petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution against orders of the Board of Revenue affirming the orders of the appellate authority where the trial authority rejected a petition under sec. 9 of the bengal Public Demands Recovery Act as not being maintainable. The facts of the case so far as are necessary for the present purpose are as follows : -

(2.) THE Collector of Cuttack issued certificates under sec. 3 (1) of the Revenue recovery Act, 1890 to the Collector of 24-Parganas for realisation of certain sum which was due from the petitioners to the State of Orissa. A certificate was thereafter issued under the bengal Public Demands Recovery Act and notices were issued on the petitioners under sec. 7 of the Bengal Public demands Recovery Act. The petitioners denied their liability. It was held that the objections were not maintainable. The trial authority rejected the petition on merits ; there was also a case of default. So far as the question of default is concerned we are not expressing any opinion. On the question of merit the only point to be considered, as was considered by the Certificate Officre, is whether the petitions of objection were maintainable or not. The certificate Officer held that the petitions of objection were not maintainable and that he held following a decision of this Court reported in (1) 64 c. W. N. 126. The appellate authority also came to the same conclusion. The commissioner summarily dismissed the petition. The Board of Revenue puts the matter in the following manner :-"he (the lawyer of the petitioners) maintains further that the certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act itself does not lie and this question was never daelt with in 64 C. W. N. " this was considered to be "new point" and was ont allowed to be raised. If however a petition is maintainable it is then only the petitioners can challenge the certificate and say that the certificates under the Public Demands Recovery Act did not lie. The board of Revenue did not hold that the petitions were maintainable It really affirmed the order of the authority bellow. We do not think that the board of Revenue intended to say that a petition was maintainable but a particular objection referred to above could not be raised. Hence, the only question for consideration is whether a partition of objection under sec. 9 of the bengal Public Demands Recovery Act is maintainable in a case to which sec 3 (1) of the Revenue Recovery Act applies.

(3.) I would refer to the statement of objects and reasons for that Act which was published in the Gazette of india dated August 27, 1887 where it was Bill No. 10 of 1887. The object has been stated as follows :-"the principal object of this bill is to provide for the recovery of arrears of revenue in districts other than those in which the arrears have accrued. The necessity of making provision in this behalf arises from the fact that most of the enactments relating to the recovery of revenue are local in their operation. Thus, the North-Western Provinces land Revenue Act, 1873 extends only to the territories for the time being under the Government of the Lieutenant-Governor of those provinces, and the Oudh Land-Revenue act, 1876, only to the territories under the administration of the chief Commissioner of that province. The consequence is that a process for the recovery of an arrear which has accrued in Oudh cannot be enforced in an adjoining district of the North-Western. Provinces. . . . . . . . The very great inconvenence arising from such a state of the law has been represented to the Government of India. . . . . . . . and legislation on the lines of this Bill has been urged by those Governments and approved by all other Local Governments. . In the case of (2) Ranganathan v. Government of Madras, 1955 (2) S. C. R. 374, it has been held that the "statement of objects and reasons can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the condition prevailing at the time which actuated the sponsors of the Bill to introduce the same and the extent and urgency of the evil on which he sought to remedy," It is for the purpose of ascertaining the condition prevailing at the time of the introduction of the Bill that we have referred to the statement of objects and reasons. The reasons were to help realisation of government revenue in a district other than the one in which the arrears accrued; it was difficult to realise the same debt in a neighbouring province where the debtor might have property. This was the evil which was sought to be remedied. The Revenue Recovery Act was not made for devising a second method or an alternative method for recovery of land revenue, but that it was mainly in aid to the existing machinery in the provinces for the recovery of land revenue from the assets of the defaulter in another province or in another district. There was a machinery in North-Western Provinces for recovery of revenue. There was also another in Oudh for recovery of revenue ; but there was no machinery by which money due on account of land revenue in North-Western provinces could he realised in Oudh except perhaps by the long drawn method of filing a suit on the basis of a certificate issued in other province. Hence, the object for the Revenue Recovery Act was to aid the existing machinery of recovery of revenues where tho dues originated in another province. This Bill was introduced as early as 1887 and it is only for the purpuose of refreshing our memory that I have referred to the objects and reasons.