BANSI LAL Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 32 (2) -A of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of respondent 5, the Tehsildar Jammu, dated 16 -4 -64 by virtue of which he has directed the arrest of the petitioners and, also directed the attachment of the boat belonging to them. The writ petition mentions S. 126 of the State. This section is wrongly quoted. Probably the petitioners wanted to invoke S 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners obtained a, contract from the Dy. Commr. Jammu for plying a boat to carry passengers from Bahu fort to the other bank of the river Tawi, for Rs. 4800 for the year .1964 -65. According to the petitioners any person passing on foot or carrying cattle or other loaded animal had ,to pay some fee. The passengers and other people and animals crossing the river without the boat of the petitioners did not pay any fee to the petitioners, but the petitioners thought that they were entitled to charge fees from such people also. The petitioners approached different authorities but to no avail. Subsequently the Tehsildar Jammu by means of the impugned order issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners for arrears of the contract money and ordered attachment of their boat. The petition makes other allegations with regard to the DC who according to the petitioner refused to obey an order of the Commissioner. A further plea of the petitioners is that the arrears of contract money or Mir Bahri are not realizable as arrears of land revenue, under S. 91 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) MR . Harbans Lal Bakshi, Teheildar Jammu has sworn, an affidavit on behalf of the respondents. He has admitted that the contract of the Mir Bahri was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners for the relevant period for a sum of Rs. 4150. The passengers and animals crossing the river without the boat of the petitioner were not liable to pay any fee to the petitioners. It is not admitted that the Dy. Commr. refused; to obey the orders of the Commr. It is said that the Commr. Had merely drawn the attention of DC to para No. 4 of the terms of the contract and asked him to give a fresh decision after consideration of that paragraph. It was admitted that the Tehsildar had directed the arrest of the petitioners as well attachment of their boat. A further plea was taken by the respondents that the petitioners never pointed out to the concerned authorities that S. 91 of the Land Revenue Act did not cover this case. As no representations had been made in this behalf before the concerned authorities and as there had been no demand for vacating the orders on the ground of non -realizability of the same as arrears of land revenue, a Mandamus could not be issued against the respondents.