PREM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner has filed this appeal under S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the order dated March 16, 1977 (reported in 1977 WLN (UC) 158) of the learned single Judge of this Court by which his writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution was dismissed. The appellant will be referred to as 'the petitioner'.

(2.) The facts leading to this appeal lie in a very narrow compass. Jagir bonds in the sum of Rs. 12,609/- were collected by the petitioner from the Office of the Collector (Jagir), Pali as he had power of attorney from one Karansingh, who claimed to be an ex-Jagirdar. Subsequently, it was discovered that Karansingh was not a Jagirdar and no amount was payable to him by way of compensation under the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952.The Collector heard the parties and came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 12,609/- was wrongly paid to the petitioner on behalf of Karansingh and as such, it was recoverable from him. A demand was made and the petitioner failed to deposit the amount and so, a certificate as required under S. 257A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956) (for short "the Act") was issued by the Collector (Jagir), Pali, which gave rise to the proceedings for recovery under the Act as arrears of land revenue. A warrant of attachment was issued by the Collector, Pali specifying that a sum of Rs. 12,609/- is due both from the petitioner and Karansingh "being unauthorised payment of compensation". The petitioner did not come to know about this until the Tahsildar, Jetaran proceeded to serve upon him a notice dated March 10, 1976 asking him to pay the unspecified amount as he stood surety for Karansingh from whom the money is due. It was stated therein that if the amount is not deposited, it would be realised by attachment and sale of his property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, Pali objecting against the threatened recovery proceedings of the amount in dispute. It appears that subsequently, the petitioner was served with an order by the Tahsildar, Jetaran asking him to deposit the amount of Rs. 12,609/- due from him, failing which the sum will be realised by attachment and sale of his property. The petitioner filed the writ petition on October 4, 1976 praying that the respondents may be restrained from proceeding against the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid to him as power of attorney holder of Karansingh and further that if coercive action is taken it may be declared illegal. The writ petition was opposed on behalf of the respondents by filing a reply along with six documents marked as Exs. R1 to R6.

(3.) The learned single Judge, after considering the contentions that were raised before him, has recorded the following findings :