MURARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment which shall govern both of them. They arise out of certificate proceedings, and having travelled through the Courts of the Revenue authorities right from the certificate officer to the Board of Revenue, have come to this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The facts of the two cases may be separately stated. C. W. J. C. No. 1993 of 1975.

(2.) PETITIONER Murari Singh had taken lease in the year 1'967 from the Forest Department for working and plucking Kendu leaves from Charkapathar Kendu leaves bearing plot No. 172 for three years (20th April 1968 to 30th June 1970). The aforesaid lot was settled for a total sum of Rs. 25,650/- payable in three instalments of Rs. 8,550/- annually. The petitioner deposited Rs. 2,130/- as security deposit and Rs. 8,550/- as the instalment for the first year, i. e. 1967-68. Thereafter he felt some difficulty in peaceful working of the coupe on account of grant of permits to third persons describing them as raiyats by the Forest Department. He brought the matter to the notice of the officers of the Forest Department by several petitions, but no step was taken to safeguard his interest and ultimately by a letter dated 25-11-1968, he surrendered the coupe indicating his inability to work out the lease for the remaining period and also applied for the refund of the security money. The claim of the petitioner was refuted by the Government and he was informed by a written notice dated 21-1-1969 to deposit the balance of the instalments. The petitioner having failed to abide by the demand, his agreement was determined by the authority concerned in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the security deposit was forfeited. The lot in question was put to re-auction, but it could fetch a price of Rs. 4,475/- only for the remaining years. After setting off this amount, there was a deficit of Rs. 10,495/-. The petitioner was required to pay the difference of the amount realised on re-auction, namely, Rs. 10,495/-, to which the Government was put to loss, and as he failed to make good the loss, the Divisional Forest Officer, Monghyr Division, Mongihyr (respondent No. 6) instituted certificate proceeding, bearing Certificate Case No. 9 of 1971-72 against the petitioner for the realisation of the said amount. C. W. J. C. No. 1995 of 1975

(3.) MR. Jagdish Prasad appearing for the petitioners in this Court has argued with great force the aforesaid plea of the petitioners that the notice under Section 7 of the Act was not legally and validly served upon them. Section 7 of the Act prescribes that when a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 4 or Section 6, he shall cause to be served upon the certificate-debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate. It is not disputed that copies of the certificates were not served on the petitioners along with the notice in the prescribed form. In our opinion, both these applications must succeed on this point alone. We are, therefore, not discussing any other question that was raised before the Revenue authorities on behalf of the petitioners. This question fell for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court long before in the case of Lachmi Kant Deo Prasad Singh v. Rameshwar Chaudhury (AIR 1948 Pat 104), where it was held that where there is simply service of notice in the prescribed form but no copy of the certificate is served as required by Section 7, it will be a case of non-compliance with the imperative and the certificate-debtor will be entitled to recover possession of his property or to set aside the sale under Section 45 of the Act even if the certificate proceeding had culminated to its end. In reply to this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader No. 111 contended, as in the reported case, that the petitioners must be deemed to have knowledge of the certificates. This argument was repelled by the learned single Judge and it was observed that mere knowledge of the certificate on the part of the certificate-debtor cannot take the place of service on him. Reliance was placed in that case on a decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Baijnath Sahai v. Ramgut Singh ((1896) 23 Ind App 45) (PC) where it was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that for this extraordinary procedure of investing a revenue officer with the power of selling a subject's property, certain forms have been laid down to be followed and conformed and that in such proceedings those forms are also matters of substance. A certificate is an ex parte decree as it is filed behind the back of the certificate-debtor, and the certificate-debtor's right to impugn the validity and correctness of the demand is reserved to a stage to come after service of notice under Section 7. Unless, therefore, the certificate-debtor is given a notice with the copy of the decree, he is in fact invited to take exception to the validity or correctness of the demand. Therefore, even though it has the appearance of a mere technicality or a form, it has the value of substance. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that in these cases, copies of the certificates being not served upon the petitioners, namely, the certificate-debtors, their mere assumed knowledge of the certificates would not amount to a valid compliance of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. On this ground alone, we would allow these applications and quash the orders of Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 and remand the matter back to the Certificate Officer, Monghyr, to dispose of the certificate proceedings in accordance with law.