DANMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition seeks to quash the order of the Tehsildar dated February 14, 1974 (Ex. 6) whereby the petitioner's objections dated February 5, 1974 raised against the demand vide Exhibit -7 dated January 14, 1974, were dismissed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under: The petitioner Danmal (since deceased) was a Khatedar tenant. The non -petitioner No. 2, Panchayat Samiti, Jaisalmer (hereinafter referred to as the 'Samiti') started giving loans in the year 1965 -66 under the irrigation scheme for digging wells to the Agriculturists. It appears that the petitioner Danmal applied for advancement of loan to him for digging well In connection with that loan, an agreement dated March 29, 1966 was executed by him in favour of the Samiti for advancement of a sum of Rs. 9 CCO/ - for construction of well. The petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 6,000/ -o'n March 29, 1966 and Rs. 3,000/ - were paid to him on August 18, 1969. The petitioner undertook the digging and construction of the well at the place approved by the Samiti but unfortunately after the completion of the work in 1969, it was found that the water was not fit for irrigation as the same was salty and was of inferior quality which fact was brought to the notice of the Samiti and the Tehsildar Jaisalmer. As the petitioner did not make payment of the instalments, so the Vikas Adhikari sent a demand note for the realisation of Rs. 2,800/ - as principal amount and Rs. 3,969.32 as interest total 6,769.32 to the Tehsil, Jaisalmer. Upon receipt of this demand note, the Tehsildar Jaisalmer started recovery proceedings against the petitioner. Writ of demand; Exhibit -7 was served on the petitioner by the Tehsildar. Thereupon objections, Exhibit -5 were filed by the petitioner Danmal. Thereafter on 14th February, 1974 the Tehsildar, Jaisalmer, Respondent No. 3, dismissed the petitioner's objections and ordered for attachment of the movable property of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the order of recovery of the Tehsildar, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The petitioner challenged the recovery proceedings on the following grounds: (1) That the Panchayat Samiti is a Body Corporate and as such has a right to sue or be sued and the only remedy available to the Panchayat Samiti is to institute a suit in the ordinary Civil Court for recovery of the amount of loan and it is not entitled to effect the recovery of the amount of loan by sending a demand note to the Tehsil and realising the amount of loan as arrears of land revenue. (2) That the procedure prescribed under Section 257A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has not been followed and no application what so ever was sent by the Samiti for recovery of the amount of loan to the Collector. Section 257A provides that an Officer or authority to whom any sum of money referred to in Section 256 or Section 257 is due and payable shall make to the Collector an application in writing in the prescribed form, containing particulars mentioned in the provisions (a) to (g) for recovery of money as Land Revenue, referred to in Section 256 and 257. It is mandatory that the application ought to have been made by the Samiti under Section 257A. Non -compliance of this mandatory provisions according to the petitioner vitiates the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner. (3) The third ground on which the recovery is challenged is that the recovery is barred by limitation. The money was obtained as loan in the year 1966 and 1969 and after a lapse of more than three years the recovery of the amount is barred.

(3.) WITH regard to the quality of water, the petitioner's averment was not admitted and it was stated that the water in the well is neither of inferior quality nor salty.