Rajinder Sachar, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition, challenging the order of respondent No. 3. Tehsildar Anopgarh, who has issued a warrant of attachment of the petitioner's property for recovery of Rs. 1,10,408.60 as the amount said to be due from the sale of the fertilizers on behalf of Panchayat Samiti by the firm Saligram Rameshwardass.
(2.) THE petitioner was a partner of the firm Saligram Rameshwardass along with three others. The firm was registered in 1953, 54. The State of Rajasthan, Agriculture Department framed a scheme for distribution of fertilizers to the agriculturists and for this purpose the petitioner firm entered into an agreement with the Agriculture Department (Ex. R/8) by which it agreed to work as fertilizer dealer of the Agriculture Department of the conditions mentioned therein. The agreement required the petitioner to sell the fertilizer, provided by the Department to the agriculturists either on cash or credit and also to maintain the accounts of the various transactions. It also, required the firm to deposit cash sale proceeds in Government treasury every week. One of the partners Saligram died in 1957. It appears that inspite of the death of the partner the firm continued its dealings with the Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar It may be added that on the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti the Agriculture Department passed on the work of distribution of fertilizers to the Panchayat Samiti. The transactions continued till 1962, 63. Apparently according to the Panchayat Samiti there was an outstanding amount against the firm which rose to Rs. 1,62595.85 in 1962, 63 out of which an amount of Rs. 22,187.25 was deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,40,408 60 is still outstanding Notices were sent by the, Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner on 10th August 1966 and 21 September, 1966 which is said to have been served on the petitioner, but inspite of that he failed to deposit the outstanding amount Another notice was sent on 7th September, 1971, but the same was returned, unserved Thereafter, the Panchayat Samiti moved the Collector for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue. In pursuance of that respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned warrant of attachment under section 230 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (to be called 'the Act') demanding that the amount of Rs. 1,40408.60 should be paid By the petitioner. The petitioner in response sent a telegram Ex. 9 contesting the action of the Tehsildar and taking the sand that the said amount was not liable to be paid by him. The petitioner not having been granted any relief has moved this Court for quashing the impugned warrant of attachment,
(3.) THE first contention of the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singhvi is that as the firm has been dissolved by the death of one of the partners in 1957 the recovery against the firm could not be made from the petitioner as one of the member of the firm. The plea is without merit because inspire of the death of one of the partners the petitioner admittedly continued to deal with the Panchayat Samiti and received the fertilizer on its account and it is now too late in the day for him to take the plea that the firm had ceased to deal with the Panchayat Samiti or that he is not personally liable for it.;