MANOHAR LAL Vs. CUSTODIAN RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by Mano-har Lal Vaishya of Fahari, District Bharatpur, against the Custodian Rajasthan, Naib Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, and Tehsildar, Pahari, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts alleged by the petitioner are that he purchased 46 maunds and 8 seers of 'sarson' from one Sheo Singh Meo on the 14th day of the dark half of the month of Asarh in Samwat year 2004, and paid Rs. 800/- to him on the same day. Rs. 5/- were paid at the time of settling the transaction, while the balance, it is said, was paid two or three days later Sheo Singh left India, and went to Pakistan. THE then custodian of Evacuee Property, Bharatpur, by his order dated 1-3-1949, acting on a report of the Naib Tehsildar, Pahari, ordered the petitioner to deposit with him Rs. 831/9/- being the price of the aforesaid 'saron', which had been purchased by the petitioner from Sheo Singh, who was an evacuee, without allowing any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. THE petitioner came to know about this order when a demand for the payment was made from him by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. After the petitioner came to know about the order, he moved a review application before the Custodian, but it was rejected. THE petitioner approached the Custodian General of Evacuee Property in exercise of his revisional powers against the orders of the Custodian, Rajasthan, but unsuccessfully. THE Custodian General confirmed the order of the Custodian on 21-7-1951. THE petitioner -challenges the jurisdiction of the Custodian in ordering a recovery of the price of 'sarson' purchased by him from an evacuee under the provisions of the Matsya Evacuee (Administration of Property) Ordinance, 1948 (Ordinance No. 11 of 1948), (hereinafter to be referred to as the Ordinance), specially because no enquiry was made by the Custodian himself before making the order, and because the Custodian proceeded to act on the report made by the Naib Tehsildar of Pahari. It is further alleged that if the Custodian was of the opinion that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount of the price of sarson purchased by him, his remedy lay by way of filing a suit against the petitioner rather than by proceeding to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue. THE fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are, it is alleged, infringed by the action of the respondents. THE cause of action, it is stated, arose on 14-10-1950, when respondent 1 asked the Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law, and when respondent 2 ordered respondent 3 to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue, or, in the alternative, on 21-7-1950, when the Custodian General of India rejected the revision application of the petitioner. THE prayer of the petitioner is 1. That a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the orders of the Deputy Custodian, Bharatpur, dated 1-3-1949, 14-10-1950, and 19-12-1950; 2. that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents restraining them from realising the amount of Rs. 831/9/- from the petitioner; and