PRATAP CHANDRA DEB Vs. AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application arises out of a proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act which was started long back in the year 1963 64 against the father of the petitioner for recovery of certain demands under the Agrl. IT Act. On the death of the certificate debtor, all his heirs and legal representatives including the present petitioner were substituted in his place. At that stage, the hearing as contemplated under S. 9 of the Act, i.e. hearing and determining the objections filed under S. 8 of the Act denying the liability or the like, had been over and the proceeding was at the stage of sale of the properties of the certificate debtor. The petitioner has annexed the sale proclamation dt. 27th April, 1981 (annexure 1), which obviously establishes the stage at which the petitioner had been added in the proceeding. He, however, came to this Court, without filing any objection in the certificate Court, with a prayer that the certificate proceeding could not go on without providing an opportunity to him for filing fresh objections as provided under S. 10 of the Act. On that application, notice of admission and hearing was issued.Sec. 10 of the Act empowers the certificate Officer, of course subject to the law of limitation, to amend the certificate by addition, omission or substitution of the name of any certificate holder or certificate debtor or by alteration of the amount claimed therein, as the case may be. The proviso to S. 10 reads as follows :

(2.) THIS is the sheet anchor of the petitioner's case. On the basis of this provision. It was submitted that notwithstanding the stage of the certificate proceeding, the Certificate Officer was bound to give fresh notice to the petitioner enabling him to have a chance to deny the liability, etc.

(3.) SUCH an interpretation, in our view, would be contrary to the scheme of the Act and would reopen many controversies. It may well be that if the Certificate Officer, after the substitution of the legal heirs, proceeds against some properties which were not originally contemplated and with respect to which the substituted heirs might have a positive claim against the liability of the properties for being proceeded against in the certificate case, then they can take recourse to the provisions under s. 20 of the Act making a claim or objection to the attachment or sale of the property in execution of the certificate in question on the ground that it is not liable as such.