Marulasiddappa, K.T. vs Deputy Commissioner, Hassan

Sri K.V. Narayana Raju-This appeal under section 49 of the Land Revenue Act is from the order dated 17-12-1979 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Hassan in HOA. CR. 160/79-80 issuing warrant under section 22(2) of the Land Revenue Act for the apprehension of the appellant herein on the ground that he had not credited the amounts which came into his possession as Secretary of Village Panchayats of Karehalli, Channarayapatna Taluk, and of Kabbali in Hassan Taluk despite notices dated 10-8-1979 and 3-10-1979.

The appellant was a Village Accountant appointed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He was also appointed to work as Secretary of the Village Panchayat in addition to his duties as Village Accountant. There were reports that he had not remitted Rs. 4,910-58 belonging to Karehalli Village Panchayath and Rs. 2,116-43 of Kabbali Village Panchayath. The Deputy Commissioner, Hassan purporting to exercise powers under section 22(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act issued orders directing the appellant to remit the amount that was misappropriated by him within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, and warning that in the event of failure further action under sec-22(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act will be taken. The appellant filed separate replies on 26-10-1979 stating that the allegations made against him were not true and also explaining how certain amounts had been dealt with by him.

There is nothing to show that the Deputy Commissioner gave an opportunity to the appellant to make good his alleged innocence, or that he made any attempt at verifying the truth or otherwise of the stand taken by the appellant. He proceeded to issue warrant of arrest under section 22(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Arsikere Taluk. He has stated in that warrant among others that the appellant had not complied with the orders dated 10-8-1979 and 3-10-1979 and that the written statement submitted by him did not make out sufficient cause for not taking action under Sec. 22(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The appellant has contended that the learned Deputy Commissioner erred in issuing the warrant without proper enquiry; that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass an order under section 22 of the Land Revenue Act, in as much as the alleged misappropriation did not relate to the Land Revenue belonging to the State Government, that the amount in respect of which misappropriation was alleged belonged to the Panchayat; that the Dy. Commissioner ought to have held that there was no misappropriation or wrongful detention of the money, etc.

The learned counsel for the appellant was heard. For the reasons to be stated hereinafter, we are of the opinion that the learned Deputy Commissioner acting under section 22 of the Land Revenue Act has no power to take action against a person working as Secretary of the Panchayath. We are of the opinion that the learned Deputy Commissioner has neither discussed the points raised by the appellant in his replies nor has given opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the grounds. For this reason also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner may have to be set aside.

Now section 22 reads:

"22 Demands for Money, Papers, etc. in the hands of Revenue Officer or other person. The Deputy Commissioner of a district or the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records or the Deputy Commissioner for Settlement or any officer appointed by such Deputy Commissioner in this behalf, shall, in all cases in which the State Government may have a claim on any Revenue Officer or any person formerly employed as such in his district or department for public money or papers or other Government property, by order under his official seal and signature, require the money or the papers or property detained by such Revenue Officer or person to be delivered either immediately to the person delivering such order, or to such person at such date and at such place as the order may specify.

(2) If the Revenue Officer or other person against whom an order is made under sub-section (1) does not pay the money or deliver up the papers or the property as directed, or fails to assign sufficient cause for non-compliance with the demand made as aforesaid, the Deputy Commissioner of the District or the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records or the Deputy Commissioner for Settlement, as the case may be, may cause the Revenue Officer or the other person to be apprehended and may send him with a warrant in the form prescribed, to be confined in the civil jail till he discharges the sums or delivers up the papers or property demanded from him:

Provided that no person shall be detained in confinement by virtue of such warrant for a period exceeding ninety days."

It may be noticed that the Deputy Commissioner of a District, or the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records or Deputy Commissioner for Settlement has been empowered to take action for recovery of the money, papers etc., in the hands of the Revenue Officer, or other person formerly employed as such in the district (of the Deputy Commissioner), or the Department of the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records or the Deputy Commissioner for Settlement. What appears, to be very clear is that section 22 is intended to deal with only Revenue Officers, present or past, who detain money, papers or property detained by them.

"Revenue Officer" according to section 2(24) of the Land Revenue Act means every officer of any rank whatsoever appointed under or employed for the purposes of this Act. It is obvious that only those are Revenue Officers who are appointed or employed for the purposes of the Land Revenue Act.

Section 16 of the Land Revenue Act refers to the appointment of a Village Accountant by the Deputy Commissioner and states that such Village Accountant shall perform all the duties of a Village Accountant prescribed in or under this Act, or in or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall hold office under and be governed by such Rules as may be prescribed.

Those provisions, namely sections 2(24), 16, 22 of the Land Revenue Act amply make out that a Village Accountant is a Revenue Officer only when he is performing the duties of a Village Accountant prescribed in or under the Land Revenue Act: and that it is impossible to say that he is a Revenue Officer even while he is performing the duties cast on him by any other law for the time being in force.

We repeat that section 22 of the Land Revenue Act can be used against Revenue Officers only in respect of acts committed by them as such Revenue Officers. A Secretary of the Village Panchayat cannot be said to be a Revenue Officer because he is not performing any duty of a Village Accountant prescribed in or under the Land Revenue Act. That section confers extraordinary power of confining a Revenue Officer who detains money, papers or property in a Civil jail, and therefore a strict interpretation has to be put on the words used therein. It may therefore be not legitimate to say that a Revenue Officer who is also appointed to be a Village Panchayat Secretary can be proceeded against under Sec. 22 of the Land Revenue Act for recovery of money or papers belonging to the Village Panchayath.

For the foregoing reasons we hold that the learned Deputy Commissioner was not right in invoicing section 22 of the Land Revenue Act for recovery of money or papers belonging to a village panchayat and detained by the Village Accontant in his capacity as Secretary of the Village Panchayath.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order-cum-warrant dated 17-12-1979 issued by the learned Deputy Commissioner is cancelled.