RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an order of the Tehsildar Chaksu, dated 3.7.1956 in a case relating to recovery of District Board cess.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. The facts relevant to this revision are that on 13.9.1955 the Naib Tehsildar on coming to know that the entire amount of the District Board cess was lying in arrears in village Kushalpura, caused a notice to be served upon the Jagirdar requiring him to deposit the amount within 15 days. The Jagirdar, Rup Singh, did not put in appearance despite notice and hence the Tehsildar, by his report, dated 6.4.1956 forwarded the papers to the S.D.O. for sanctioning attachment of immovable property. The S. D. O. accorded this sanction on 17.4.1956. The first attachment of the property of the Jagirdar was made on 9.5.1956 in which two bullocks, one bullock cart and some other minor items were attached and given over in the custody of Jinsi Patel. It appears that Jinsi was required to execute an agreement for depositing the amount outstanding against the Jagirdar. But he made default in redeeming his pledge. Subsequent attachment was, therefore, carried out under orders of the Tehsildar on 29.6.1965 in which two bullocks and one camel were attached. On

(3.) 7.1956 Rameshwar Lal raised an objection before the Tehsildar to the effect that the attached property belonged to him and was not liable to be proceeded against. This was rejected by the Tehsildar on that very day with the following order : "This is an application presented by Shri Chiranjilal on behalf of the applicant (objector) Shri Rameshwarlal. This is an application in which the applicant has objected to the attachment of the property of Shri Roop Singh, Jagirdar. I find that this application has been submitted by the applicant to delay the proceedings and as such I do not consider any investigation necessary in this case. The proceedings have already been long delayed by the unnecessary interference of one Rameshwarlal. Hence this application is rejected." The applicant has come up in revision before us against this order. The revision petition was filed in the Board on 11 -7 1956. The applicant applied for grant of an interim stay order on 12.7.1956. This application was allowed and the Tehsildar was directed to refrain from taking further proceedings in the matter. The record of the lower court was also sent for. On 12.7.1956 and 13.7.1956 the auction proceedings of the camel and the bullocks were carried out by the Tehsildar in which Rs. 340 - were offered for the camel as the highest bid by Chhotudas Chela and the same person offered the highest bid of Rs. 301/ - for the bullocks. The Tehsildar by his order, dated 13.7.1956 required the purchaser to deposit the auction money. This appears to have been done on 20.7.1956. It has been alleged by the applicant that the stay order issued by the Board was handed over to the Tehsildar on 13.7.1956, and inspite of that the Tehsildar continued the auction proceedings. 3. The main contention put forth by the applicants counsel before us is that the proceedings taken out by the Tehsildar are all ultra vires and must be quashed. As conceded by the learned Government Advocate there is much substance in this contention. Rajasthan District Boards Act, 1954 which was enforced within the territory of the former Jaipur State on 26th January, 55, has to be examined in this connection. Chapter VI of the Act deals with taxation. Section 113 lays down the Boards power to levy cess. It runs as follows : - -? Boards power to levy cess. A Board shall levy with the pre\ious sanction of the State Government - -