BHARAT BHUSHAN Vs. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL, J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 19 -11 -1997 passed by respondent -1 dismissing the appeal challenging notice of demand raised by respondent -2 for payment of the amount outstanding against him.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are these. Executive Officer Notified Area Committee, Rajouri acting under sub -section (1) of section 101 of the J&K Municipal Act raised a demand of Rs. 51,300 giving the petitioner option either to deposit the amount within 15 days or to prefer an appeal if he so desires failing which amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. This notice is dated 01 -12 -1989. The petitioner exercised the option by filing an appeal before the Special Tribunal. By order dated 19 -11 -1997 the Tribunal rejected the appeal relying on the judgment of this court in Amrik Singh Vs. State & Ors., 1992 KLJ 113.

(3.) IT is this order rejecting the appeal which is assailed on the ground that its findings are contrary to the provisions of law and against the judgment in Amrik Singhs case (supra). Mr. Thakur appearing for the petitioner argued that the judgment of the Tribunal is erroneous because he has wrongly applied the law. Sub -section (1) of section 101 of the Municipal Act argued the learned counsel provides for notice calling upon the withdrawal to pay the amount while sub -section (2) prescribes what notice should contain. Sub -section (3) applies only where no appeal has been preferred. Since the petitioner has preferred appeal against the notice issued under sub -section (1) of section 101, sub -section (c) of section 103 was not applicable. Contention of Mr. Jandial is that the appeal was incompetent because neither the amount was deposited nor any security offered.