KANSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kanshi Ram petitioner took on lease the land of one Smt. Basant Kaur from the Collector, Sangrur, in the year 1949 at Rs. 25,000/- per annum and also took on lease from the Collector some evacuee land for the year 1949-50 and agreed to pay annual rent of Rs. 16,500/- for the same, the total lease money payable by the petitioner to the Collector being Rs. 41,500/-. Some payments were made by the petitioner and the balance due from him was said to be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. His property was attached and sold and Rs. 5,000/- were thereby recovered by the Collector. The petitioner then approached the Collector to fix reasonable instalments for the payment of the balance. It is the admitted case of both sides that after taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the Collector allowed the payment of the balance in instalments of Rs. 400/- per annum. The amount of Rs. 400/- could be paid in two parts of Rs. 200/- each. The petitioner paid Rs. 1,800/- by instalments upto January 4, 1966, out of the total outstanding. He has produced copies of receipts dated December 20, 1961, and January 4, 1966.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that about the middle of June 1966 he was informed by the peon of the Tehsil that the order of the Collector allowing payment of the balance in instalments passed in 1961 had now been set aside by the Commissioner suo motu and that the Collector had ordered not only the attachment of the remaining property of the petitioner, but also his arrest to enforce recovery of the balance. It is further alleged by the petitioner that he sent his son to the Tehsil to make enquiries and to deposit the second part of the instalment of Rs. 400/- i.e. Rs. 200/- for the year 1966, but the Tehsildar refused to accept payment of Rs. 200/- and also declined to allow inspection of the record. The written reply of the respondents filed as return to the rule issued in the case shows that the order of the Collector, Sangrur, passed in 1961, allowing payment of the outstanding amount in easy instalments was set aside by the Commissioner suo motu on February 22, 1964, without giving any notice of the proposed action to the petitioner. It is on account of the said ex parte order of the Commissioner that the threatened arrest of the petitioner and attachment of his remaining property has been justified, as the petitioner was not prepared to pay up the entire amount of the balance in lump sum. It has not been denied by the respondents that the Tehsildar did not allow the petitioner inspection of the records or to have a copy of the order of the Commissioner dated February 22, 1964, and that the Tehsildar did refuse to accept the payment by instalments in pursuance of the 1961 order. It has, however, been added in the written statement that the petitioner did not make any application for the supply of the requisite copy of the order of the Commissioner. No copy of the order of the Commissioner has been produced by the respondents even in these proceedings.

(3.) The ex parte order of the Commissioner, in pursuance of which the impugned action is sought to be taken against the petitioner, is clearly violative of the principles of natural justice, according to which it was the duty of the Commissioner to call upon the petitioner to show cause against the proposed order, to give him an adequate opportunity to do so and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law only after hearing him. Such steps not having been taken by the Commissioner, the suo motu orders, said to have been passed by him on February 22, 1964, ex parte, cannot be sustained. The result is that the order of the Collector, allowing payment by instalments, still holds the field. It would not be appropriate for the respondents to penalise the petitioner in any way for not making payment of any instalment from June 1966, as receipt of the same was refused by the Tehsildar on account of the impugned order of the Commissioner.