BALBIR SINGH BEDI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application for the issue of a writ the petitioner-Lambardar questions a notice issued to him to pay certain land revenue arrears to the tune of Rs. 18,640/-. The petitioner states that he has not collected this amount and that he cannot be called upon to pay the same. In the return the respondents have taken a categorical stand that the petitioner did collect the amount from the persons liable to pay the land revenue. This case was adjourned several times in order to enable the respondents to produce some record to show that the petitioner had collected the land revenue, as alleged in the return. Inspite of the several adjournments granted to the respondents, no record has been produced. I must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the petitioner did not collect any land revenue, as alleged in the return. Even so the learned counsel for the respondents urges that the petitioner must be considered to be a defaulter, because he failed to collect the land revenue from the persons liable to pay the same and remit into the Treasury. There is no substance in this submission. 'Defaulter' is defined in Section 2(8) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, as amended in Haryana, as a person liable for an arrear of land revenue or any tax in lieu thereof, including (i) a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of the arrear, and (ii) a headman or any other person who has collected the land revenue or any tax in lieu thereof but has not deposited the same into the Government Treasury. The definition of 'defaulter' shows that a Lambardar can be treated as a defaulter only if he has collected the land revenue but has not deposited the same into the Government Treasury. It has not been established that the petitioner had collected any land revenue in the present case. He cannot thus be said to be a defaulter. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed and the notice, annexure P. 1 is quashed.