MOHINDER SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR KARNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE salient facts of this case are that according to the Collector, Karnal, Mohinder Singh Lambardar recovered Rupees 99,736. 42 as land revenue but he deposited Rs. 90,292. 34 in the Government treasury. Thus, Rs. 9,444. 08 were outstanding against him. For the recovery thereof, Mohinder Singh was proceeded against under the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as applicable to Haryana. The Tahsildar, Revenue, Karnal, issued warrant of his arrest. Feeling aggrieved, Mohinder Singh filed this writ petition challenging the said mode of recovery.

(2.) MOHINDER Singh solely relied on the definition of "defaulter" given in S. 3 (8) of the said Act, at the time of the institution of the writ petition. It reads:-" "defaulter" means a person liable for an arrear of land revenue, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of the arrears. " Reliance was then placed on Sarup Singh v. Collector, Hissar, 1970 Cur LJ 431 (Punj), wherein B. R. Tuli, J. laid down :-

(3.) THE two authorities cited above would have fully covered this case, but for the fact, as pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, that Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, that during the pendency of this writ petition, the definition of "defaulter" was amended by the Punjab Land Revenue (Haryana Amendment) Act No. 45 of 1973. The amendment reads:"