GURBACHAN KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the daughter of Bishan Singh who owned 14 Kanals 8 Marlas of land comprised in Khasra No. 1977/120, 121 situate in Batala East. Bishan Singh died in 1957 and the petitioner, being his sole heir, inherited the land. She sold it to Ram Sahai and Dwarka Dass on July 25, 1960, with respect to which mutation No. 6596 was sanctioned on November 11, 1960. In September, 1963, the Tehsildar, Batala, sent a demand notice to the petitioner requiring her to pay Rs. 4802.40 on account of ad hoc assessment under the Punjab Land Revenue (Special Assessments) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) for a period of 7-1/2 years from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1962. Before making the said demand, no notice of any assessment was given to the petitioner nor was she afforded any opportunity to show cause against the proposed demand. After the receipt of the demand notice, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Gurdaspur, on September 21, 1963, challenging the assessment and praying for the stay of the recovery proceedings. Alongwith this application, copies of Khasra Girdawaris showing the position of the land were filed. This application was sent to the Tehsildar by the Collector. The Tehsildar reduced the amount of assessment from Rs. 4802.40 to Rs. 1359.92 confining the assessment to three years from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1958, without issuing any notice to the petitioner. On January 21, 1964, the petitioner made another application to the Collector, Gurdaspur, as she had not received any order on her application dated September 21, 1963. On this application the Collector passed an order asking the Tehsildar to produce the relevant record at Aliwal on January 23, 1964, in order to explain the accounts to the petitioner in his presence. It is not made clear in the written statement whether the Tehsildar brought the record and explained the accounts to the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, stated that no accounts were explained to her and no order was passed in her presence by either the Tehsildar or the Collector making assessment of Rs. 4802.40 or Rs. 1359.92. The petitioner applied for a copy of the order but none was supplied to her. In the written statement, however, it is stated that the Tehsildar had reported that the land was used as 'Pather' from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1958 and thus had been put to use for a non-agricultural purpose. It is admitted that the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris with regard to the period from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1958 were "Khali" and Banjar Jadid". From these entries the Tehsildar has inferred that the land was used as "Pather". At other places it is mentioned that earth was taken for bricks out of this land during the period from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1958 and, therefore, it was treated as "Pather". It has also been mentioned that a responsible officer inspected the spot to ascertain the facts before the demand was reduced to Rs. 1359.92 from Rs. 4802.40 and it was found that the land was used as "Pather" from Kharif 1955 to Kharif 1958 only and then it was sold in 1960. This inspection by a responsible officer must have taken place after September 21, 1963, as the amount was reduced after the petitioner filed her application on that date and a notice of demand for Rs. 1359.92 was issued to her on April 30, 1964. I fail to understand how in 1963 or 1964 the spot inspection could show that earth had been taken out of this land five to eight years earlier for the manufacture of bricks. The enquiries at the spot, if any, were made by the responsible officer in the absence of the petitioner. Even the identity of that responsible officer has not been disclosed. Merely on the basis of the entries in the Khasra Girdawaris it could not be inferred that the land had been put to use for a purpose other than agricultural. It is nowhere stated that any brick-kiln existed near the land for which earth was utilised from this land. It has also not been stated to what use the vendees, Ram Sahai and Dwarka Dass, had put the land after purchasing it in 1960 and whether any demand against them had been made. As I have said above no record of the proceedings has been produced before me and on the material on the record I am constrained to hold that the demand made from the petitioner was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Even when she moved the applications dated the 21st September, 1963, and the 21st January, 1964, no proceedings were taken in her presence to ascertain the use, if any to which the land had been put during the period for which the demand was being created against her. She had definitely stated that the land had remained vacant and had not been put to any use. Principles of natural justice were required to be observed in the case not only because the matter had to be determined by the Tehsildar and the Collector as quasi-judicial Tribunals, but because sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act requires a speaking and a reasoned order to be passed against which an appeal lies to the Collector. From this it is reasonable to infer that the Legislature intended-Collector also to pass a speaking order giving reasons in support of his order on appeal. No such orders have been placed before me nor has any reference been made to them in the written statement.

(2.) For the reasons given above, this petition is allowed with costs and the demand notice dated the 30th April, 1964, is hereby quashed. Counsel's fee Rs. 100.