CHANDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In 1956 waste land of village Ganeshpur, Tehsil and District Patiala, was reclaimed by the Pepsu State under the provisions of Pepsu Reclamation of Lands Act, 2009 Bk. After the merger of the States of Punjab and Pepsu with effect from November 1, 1956, that Act was repealed and replaced by Punjab Reclamation of Lands Act, 1959. A sum of Rs. 42,904.96 Paise was determined as payable by the Gram Panchayat for the reclamation of the said land. In 1965, the amount was sought to be recovered from the lessees of the land, including the petitioner. It is stated in the return filed by the respondents that the petitioner and six other lessees of land agreed to pay the amount in instalments extending over 3 years. The first instalment was to be paid from Rabi crop 1966. The petitioner and the other lessees, however, did not pay the amount and filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the State of Punjab from recovering the amount from them. That suit was withdrawn and was dismissed on February 21, 1973. Thereafter, the Naib Tehsildar, Reclamation, (respondent 4) issued a notice to the Gram Panchayat to pay the amount of Rs. 42,904.96 Paise before May 28, 1973. On receipt of that notice, the Gram Panchayat issued a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Collector, Patiala, for withdrawing the demand notice and stating that, in case it was not done, a suit would be filed. On July 16, 1973, a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to pay the amount of Rs. 1165/- on account of reclamation charges and asking him to attend the office of Naib Tehsildar on the following day (July 17, 1973). The petitioner agreed to pay the amount if a peon was sent with him. The petitioner handed over a cheque for Rs. 1165/- against a receipt on the State Bank of Patiala, Bhupindernagar Branch, Patiala, to the peon. On July 21, 1973, the Manager of the Bank informed the Naib Tehsildar that the petitioner had stopped payment of the cheque which bore dated July 30, 1973. The petitioner then filed the present petition challenging the demand notice issued by Naib Tehsildar, respondent 4.

(2.) This petition must succeed on the short ground that under Section 8 of the Punjab Reclamation of Lands Act, 1959, the Director of Agriculture has to determine the amount payable by the various landowners and to apportion the amount amongst them. That power could be delegated under Section 17 of the said Act. A notification has been filed by the Director of Agriculture with his return showing that he had delegated that power to the Deputy Director of Agriculture. No order of the Director of Agriculture or of the Deputy Director of Agriculture has been reproduced to show that the amount recoverable on account of reclamation of land had been apportioned amongst the several lessees by either of them. It appears from paragraph 11 of the return filed by the Naib Tehsildar that he apportioned the amount amongst the various lessees and issued notice for the payment of Rs. 1165/- to the petitioner. This action of apportionment of the amount by the Naib Tehsildar was clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, the recovery of that amount could not be made by him from the petitioner. The proceedings taken by the Naib Tehsildar from July 16, 1973, onwards against the petitioner, are, therefore, without jurisdiction and must be quashed. I accordingly accept his writ petition with costs and quash the recovery proceedings taken by the Naib Tehsildar for the recovery of Rs. 1165/- form the petitioner. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-.