9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (7) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ricultural land by his petition dated 27th December, 1973. The Commercial Taxes Officer fixed 7th January, 1974, for hearing the objection petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that the objections were not heard and no decision was communicated to him. But on reference to the relevant record, which was produced before me by the learned counsel appearing for the State, it appears that the petitioner was heard in respect of his objections and the objections were rejected by the order dated 7th January, 1974, and the order was also pronounced in the presence of the petitioner. The tenancy rights in the aforesaid land were put to sale by public auction on 25th February, 1974, and the final bid was knocked down in favour of the non-petitioner No. 6 for a sum of Rs. 4,050 per bigha. The petitioner has alleged that although 1/4 of the auction money was deposited by the auction purchaser, yet the remaining amount was not deposited by him within a period of 15 days, as provided in section 243 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid auction sale and it has been urged by the learned counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly authorised to exercise the powers and perform the duties conferred by the Act upon the Collector in respect of sale of rights in agricultural land by public auction for arrears of sales tax, which are realisable as arrears of land revenue. Section 237 of the Act authorises the Collector to sell any specified area or estate by public auction for realisation of the arrears of land revenue, if he is of the opinion that other processes are not sufficient for recovery of such arrears and the same powers are vested in the Commercial Taxes Officer, in so far as he may proceed to realise arrears of sales tax as arrears of land revenue. It was then argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Commercial Taxes Officer before proceeding to attach and sell the tenancy rights in the land in question, he should have come to the conclusion that the arrears of sales tax could not be recovered by any other process. The petitioner has not pointed out in this writ petition that any other assets of the petitioner were available from which the Commercial Taxes Officer could have realised the arrears of sales tax to the tune of Rs. 16,555.12. As the powers of the Collector have been del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s not one of the authorities specified under section 239 of the Act. Section 239 authorises either the Collector, an Assistant Collector or a Tehsildar, specially appointed by him as the person who could conduct the sale. As the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has not been specified in section 239 of the Act as a person to whom the powers of conducting the sale could have been delegated, the sale in the present came, which was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, was clearly without jurisdiction. It was argued by Mr. Bhanderi, appearing for the State, that the petitioner could have raised an objection in this respect, when the sale was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and that the proper remedy of the petitioner after the sale has been completed was to file an application under section 247 of the Act to the Collector, for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale, within a period of thirty days from the date of the sale. As no such application was submitted by the petitioner within the specified period of thirty days, the sale could not now be challenged after a long time on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, the Collector in person or an Assistant Collector or a Tehsildar, specially appointed by the Collector in this behalf. There is no provision for the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer for being authorised to conduct the sale. As such, it cannot be held that by any stretch the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer could be considered to be an authorised person for conducting the sale under Chapter X of the Land Revenue Act. I have no doubt in my mind in holding that the sale conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, in the present case, was without jurisdiction and was a nullity. It was then argued by the learned counsel appearing for the State that even if the sale was conducted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, in the instant case, no substantial injury was caused to the petitioner and as there was no failure of justice, this Court should not interfere in its extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. When the sale effected by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer is a nullity, it is difficult to hold that no manifest injustice was caused in the present case. For ought one knows if the sale proceedings were conducted in a proper and le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
