1969 (6) TMI 42 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court.
2. Validity of the Certificate issued under Section 3(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act.
3. Validity of the Proclamation issued by the Mamlatdar.
4. Whether the plaintiff was a defaulter under the Revenue Recovery Act.
5. Requirement of an inquiry before issuing the certificate.
6. Applicability of Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act regarding deposit of the amount claimed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:
The primary argument raised by Mr. Tambe for the appellant was that the learned Joint Judge erred in holding that the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. It was pointed out that the District Court had previously reversed the Trial Court's finding, holding that the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, had jurisdiction. This finding was conclusive and could not be reopened. The appellate court cannot entertain jurisdictional issues unless prejudice is shown to have been caused by the suit being instituted in an inappropriate forum. The subject matter of the suit involved actions taken by the Mamlatdar in the district, thus conferring jurisdiction on the Trial Court.

2. Validity of the Certificate issued under Section 3(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act:
Mr. Tambe contended that the certificate (Ex. 31) was invalid as it was issued by an authority not entitled under Section 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act. However, the plaintiff did not amend his pleadings to challenge the certificate on this ground. The Union of India may have had several answers if this point had been raised at trial. The certificate, issued by the Collector of Osmanabad, was presumed valid, and the plaintiff was not allowed to traverse beyond his original pleadings to challenge its legality at this stage.

3. Validity of the Proclamation issued by the Mamlatdar:
The proclamation issued by the Mamlatdar was challenged on the grounds that it was illegal and void under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act. However, Section 6 pertains to attachment, while the proclamation in question was for the sale of property. The procedure under the Land Revenue Code for attachment and sale of property applied, and the Mamlatdar had the authority to issue the proclamation under administrative orders. The appellate court found the proclamation valid, and the trial court's decision was based on the incorrect assumption that the certificate was invalid due to lack of inquiry.

4. Whether the plaintiff was a defaulter under the Revenue Recovery Act:
The appellant argued that he was not a "defaulter" as defined by Section 2(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act. However, the Union of India produced a bond executed by the appellant, which referred to Rule 103 of the Posts and Telegraphs Manual and the Public Accountants' Default Act, 1850. The bond obligated the appellant to pay for any loss caused to the Union due to his conduct. Thus, the appellant was considered a defaulter, as the loss was recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.

5. Requirement of an inquiry before issuing the certificate:
The appellant argued that the certificate was invalid as no inquiry was held before its issuance, violating natural justice. However, Section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act does not mandate an inquiry before issuing a certificate. The defaulting officer can challenge the amount through a suit, provided the amount is deposited. The appellant had opportunities to contest the claim but failed to utilize them, leading to the conclusion that the certificate was valid.

6. Applicability of Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act regarding deposit of the amount claimed:
The appellate court held that the suit could not be maintained without depositing the amount claimed. Although Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act might not apply if the challenge is solely to the proclamation's legality, the merits of the case were decided against the plaintiff, rendering this point moot.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's suit was rejected with costs throughout. The interim injunction was vacated, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the application to the Union.