REWAT SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an appellate order of the Additional Collector, Jaipur, dated 2.11.55, upholding the original order of the Tehsildar, Lalsot dated 17.7.54 in a case relating to recovery of District Board cess.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record as well. At the very outset our attention was drawn by the learned Government Advocate to a decision of the Board in case No. 133 Jaipur of 1956 (Rameshwar vs. State) decided on 16.10.56 wherein it was held that the Tehsildar had no legal authority to realise the District Board cess arrears as arrears of land revenue under the District Boards Act or the Public Demands Recovery Act. This case is clearly distinguishable from the present one on the ground that in that case action was commenced by the Naib Tehsildar on 13.9.55, i.e. after the enforcement of the Rajasthan District Boards Act, 1954 on 26.1.55, and hence the validity of the actions taken by the Tehsil authorities in that case were examined with reference to the provisions of the Rajasthan District Boards Act, 1954. In that context it was decided by a Division Bench of the Board to which one of us was a party, that the Tehsildar had no authority to realise the District Board cess as arrears of land revenue. In the present case, the action by the Tehsildar commenced in 1953 and on 10.7.54, he issued a Hindi Kafiyat to the Assistant Collector which when rendered in English would run as follows - Sub : Recovery of cess from Thikana Jhapda. In the above case, I write to state that Jagirdar Khet Singh of Thikana Jhapda owes cess amounting to Rs. 112/12/- in respect of village Anoppura. In respect of village Jhapda about Rs. 1000/-, are outstanding. No Jama has been assessed for the last 9 harvests. Notice was issued to the Thikana to arrange for the settlement of jama and payment of the same till 10.7.54, failing which action under sec. 107 of the Jaipur Land Revenue Act shall be taken against him. Notice was served, Thikana did not arrange for the deposit of the matalba. Hence sanction may be accorded for attachment of immovable and movable property of the Thikana and realising the arrears from the same. When this letter reached the office of the Assistant Collector, a note was put up by the office as follows : - "If approved, attachment may be allowed." The Assistant Collector wrote out the word 'Yes' and returned the papers after putting down his signatures. When the papers reached the Tehsildar, he on 17.7.54 directed the issue of a warrant of attachment and appointed a Girdawar to execute the same, assisted by five peons of the Tehsil. Thus it is clear that the propriety or otherwise of the proceedings carried out by the Tehsildar will have to be determined with reference to the law existing on that date.