PREM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be restrained from proceeding to recover the amount of Rs. 12,609/ - from the petitioner under the provisions of Section 257A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that Jagir bonds in the sum of Rs. 12,609/ - were collected by the petitioner from the office of the Collector Jagir, Pali as a Power of Attorney holder of one Karan Singh, who claimed to be an ex -Jagirdar. It was subsequently discovered that Karan Singh 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, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 12,609/ - which was erroneously paid to the petitioner because such amount was not payable either to Karan Singh or to the petitioner. A demand was made and on the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount in question, a certificate as required under Section 257A of the Act was issued by the Collector Jagir, Pali which gave rise to the proceedings for recovery under the provisions of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged demand is not covered by any of the provisions of Section 256 of the Act and that Karan Singh was liable for the aforesaid sum and not the petitioner.

(3.) MR . Mridul, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argued in the first place, that the present case comes within Sub -clause (a) of Clause (1) of Article 226 of the Constitution, as the recover of the amount would, result in deprivation of property within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and thus the writ petition was for enforcement of a fundamental right conferred by Part III of the Constitution. The submission of, the learned Counsel is that in such a case, inspite of the existence of another remedy, the court should not refuse to entertain the writ petition. In the second place, he submitted that the remedy of a filing suit has not been provided under the provisions of the Act, but as a matter of fact the provisions of Sub -section (4) of Section 257B of the Act takes away the right of filing suit. Another submission made by learned Counsel is that the remedy of -filing a suit available under Clause (3) of Section 257B of the Act does not provide 'such redress' as may be available to the petitioner under the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.