R.S.NARULA, J. - (1.) THE facts of this case portray a dismal picture of the manner in which the officials of the State Government sometimes choose to act in the discharge of their duties. The facts, hereinafter stated reveal the scant regard shown by the concerned Government functionaries for the person and property of a respectable citizen of this Republic.
(2.) SARTAJ Singh petitioner owns land and resides in village Chicha, Hadbast 27. tahsil Taran Taran district Amritsar. He is admittedly a Lambardar of the adjoining village Mahmudnagar Hadbast No. 28, in the same tahsil, since August 13 1951. There are four posts of Lambardars in the revenue estate of village Chicha. One of those posts fell vacant on the resignation of one Gurmej Singh on March 21 1955 Petitioner who appears to have been taking keen interest in village welfare as evidenced by the Praman Patra (Annexure 'B') issued in his favour by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on July 24, 1956, made an application for being appointed as a Lambardar in place of Gurmej Singh in addition to his being Lambardar of Mahmudnagar. The only other applicant for the post was one Hardit Singh. By his order, dated September 5, 1957 (Annexure'A'), Shri H. B. Lai who was the Collector of Amritsar at that time held that Sartaj Singh owned 252 Kanals of land out of which 22 Kanals and 7 marlas were in village Chicha, that he was literate, that he was an ex -serviceman and Sarpanch that he was also a member of the Block Advisory Committee and held a number of commendation certificates to his credit, and, therefore, seemed to be a better candidate than Hardit Singh The Collector further observed that Sartaj Singh was of good character and had been recommended by the Revenue Officer below. In spite of all those findings, the Collector declined to applicant Sartaj Singh on the solitary ground that he was already the Lambardar of the adjoining village Mahmudnagar. Having excluded Sartaj Singh from the contest for the above said office, the Collector appointed Hardit Singh who was the only other applicant in the field as Lambadar of village Chicha in the vacancy caused by the resignation of Gurmej Singh. There is no quarrel with that order in the present proceedings.
(3.) FROM the original records shown to me, it appears that while recovering the land revenue relating to village Mahmudnagar. the petitioner accepted the lard revenue in respect of both the villages from such landowners as owned land in each of the two villages, and who off red to pay to the petitioner the land revenue in respect of their holdings in village Chicha also. It is, however, significant that it is no body's case that the petitioner ever kept with him any amount recovered as land revenue from any land -holder in respect of his Chicha land. Notice, dated April 5, 1965 (Annexure 'C'), was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar Taran Tarn relating to the recovery of land revenue of village Chicha a amounting to Rs 12,376.84 P. The notice was addressed to the petitioner as "Lambardar, resident of village Chicha" and stated as follows : You are hereby informed through this notice, in the above mentioned case that you should appear in the Tahsil on the 30th April, 1965, together with relevant papers for rendition of account. In case of your absence the recovery will be made by attachment. No objection shall be heard thereafter. The petitioner claims to have resisted the revenue authorities in their demand to foist the liability for the unpaid amount of land revenue in respect of village Chicha on the ground that he was never appointed a Lambardar of village Chicha and was under no liability to collect or deposit the If nd revenue of that village. The petitioner could not convince the revenue authorities about his stand. Tahsildar, Taran Taran, therefore, issue a memorandum of demand, dated June 7. 1965 (Annexure 'E') relating to village Chicha, Hadbast No. 27, wherein the petitioner was described as the Lambardar The said memorandum of demand contained year wise figures of the total demand of land revenue and the figures of the amount recovered as land revenue and the balance of recovered revenue. The net balance of the recovered amount after adjusting therefrom the excess recovery is given in the said memorandum as Rs 8,683.72 P. The statement relates to the period commencing from Khar if 1954 -55 and ending with the Kharit 1960 -61. Faced with this situation, the petitioner served on the State Government notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and followed it up by suit No. 185 of 1965, instituted on October 15/16, in that year in the trial Court at Amritsar, Shri R.P. Gaind, Subordinate Judge. 1st Class, Amritsar, while dismissing the suit by hi; judgment and decree, dated March 7, 1968 on the ground that section 66 read with section 158 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887 (17 of l887) (hereinafter called the Act) barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court from determining the question of the correctness of the recovery certificate and from trying matters relating to any claim connected with or arising out of the collections by the Government or the enforcement by the Government of any process for the recovery of the land revenue observed inter alia as follows: It is strange to note in this case that the Government has nowhere pleaded that the plaintiff was appointed as a Lambardar and there is nothing on the record to show under what authority he did so (here covered the land revenue relating to the village Chicha) The appointment of a Lambardar is governed by certain rules and regulations on the subject and it is not discretionary with any revenue authority to authorise or permit anybody to act as such.... He again observed in his judgment that he could not help placing on record the fact that in this case the conduct of the revenue authorities concerned had been most undesirable and in violation of the departmental rules. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above said judgment and decree of the trial Court which is still pending. I have been told that the appellate Court has been adjourning the hearing of the appeal from time to time at the request of the counsel for the State. Daring the pendency of the civil suit, the land of the petitioner measuring twelve Acres was attached. Though a warrant of arrest of the petitioner for non -payment of the alleged amount due from him had been issued as long ago as on May 19, 1965, it was not executed till after the decision of the civil suit. During the pendency of the petitioner's appeal against the decree of the civil Court; the said warrant was executed and the petitioner was actually arrested on June 13, 1968, and was kept in the tehsil lock up from that day to June 2t, 1968, and thereafter in civil jail till July 4, 1968, on account of the alleged default of payment of Rs. 10,863.28 P. Though an auction notice in respect of the attached land of the petitioner had been issued on April 6, 1987 (Annexure 'D') for the recovery of Rs. 8,690.72 P. from him after having obtain d the approval of the Commissioner under section 75 of the Act and the sale had been proclaimed for May 22, 1967, the property could not be sold as the State had been restrained by an injunction pendente lite issued by the Subordinate Judge. Amritsar, from auctioning the said attached property during the pendency of the petitioner's suit. It was in the above mentioned circumstances that the present writ petition was filed on October 18, 1968; for quashing the notice, dated April 15, 1935 (Annexure 'C'), and the other recovery proceedings. When the case came up for preliminary hearing, it was directed to be brought to a hearing after service of notice of motion. Service was completed for December 10 1968, but the hearing of the case was adjourned on that date to December 13, 1968, at the request of the learned State Counsel The order of the Motion Bench, dated December 13, 1968, reads as follows : Mr. Harinder Singh for petitioner. Mr. Malithi for the State. It is stated by the counsel for the State that the petitioner was actually asked to collect the land revenue in village Chicha. Let an affidavit be filed to this effect To come up on 3rd January, 1969. When this case finally came up for admission before Shamsher Bahadur, J. and my self on January 3, 1969, Mr. Majithia appeared for the State, but no affidavit was filed by him in pursuance of the direction given by the Bench on the previous hearing. The petition was, therefore, admitted and recovery proceedings were directed to be stayed. The petition having been dire ted by the Bench to be heard within two months, has come up for hearing before me after service on the respondents. In the written statement, dated January 21, 1969, filed by the Collector, Amritsar, it has been stated that since the petitioner had been receiving the Dhal Bachhes for the period from Kharif 1954, to Kharif 1960, in respect of village Chicha and making collection thereof, as such the recovery of arrears due from him can be made under section 61 read with section 3(8) of the Act. In reply to the material averments in the written statement of the Collector, the petitioner stated in his replication, dated February 24, 1969, that the respondents had incorrectly stated that the petitioner had been receiving Dhal Bachhes of village Chicha, and that the petitioner was never authorised to collect the land revenue of that village, nor he ever did that, though the petitioner had sometimes assisted the authorities in his capacity as Sarpanch. ;