- (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order of the S. D. O. Jhadol dated 20-12-1966. The proceedings were initiated u/s. 257 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for recovery of dues on account of shortage of wheat supplied on Government account to the petitioner who was running a rationshop. An amount of Rs. 2732. 69 was alleged to be outstanding against him. A notice u/s. 229 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 was served on the petitioner. THIS has been challenged in the present revision petition.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the case falls under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 under Item Nos. VI and VIII of the Schedule annexed to it. It was further urged that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had entered into any contract with the Government and that the arrears due were liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. THE learned counsel cited RLW 1967 page 209 (Purushottamdas vs. THE Collector, Jhunjhunu) and 1957 RLW, 370 (Rajhumal vs. THE State of Raj.), in support of his contention that the case more appropriately comes under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. He further contended that compliance of Sec. 257-A has also not been made in the instant case and in the absence thereof, the proceedings are void. The learned Government Advocate conceded that the compliance of Sec. 257-A had not been made. He also admitted that there is no contract on record, so that it cannot be ascertained whether the dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue. I have carefully considered the contention of the parties and perused the record. There is nothing on record to establish that there was a contract between the petitioner and the State Govt. and that in accordance with the terms of his contract the sum due was recoverable as arrears of land revenue, within the meaning of Sec. 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. Even if it be assumed that the case comes within the purview of Sec. 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, compliance of Sec. 257-A has not been made in the absence of which the proceedings are void. In the result, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order of the S. D. O. is set aside. .;