Uma Charan Thakur vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 30.07.2004 whereby he was required to deposit 40% of the dues, which is alleged to be in the name of his father, who has already died on 27.05.2000 in respect of Certificate Proceeding being Certificate Case No. 77 of 1998-99 in T.R. No. 35 of 2003-04 pending before the respondent no. 2.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged recovery certificate dues were initiated against the father of the petitioner being Certificate Case No. 77/1998-99 in connection with certain work relating to the Cluster Shade at Dimbu Jarda, Tamar. The petitioner''s father was posted as Panchayat Sevak in Tamar Block. However, it is submitted that the said petitioner was never substituted by the respondents in the said certificate case in place of father of the petitioner, who admittedly died on 27.05.2000. Moreover, by way of the reply to the counter affidavit, it has further been submitted that petitioner has three brothers and two mothers of which one of mother has already died in 2005 as well. It is further submitted that realisation of the certificate dues may not be justified against the petitioner, who is son of the deceased certificate debtor because the petitioner is not the only legal heir of the deceased- Ramjiwan Hazam rather rest of the legal heirs including this petitioner were never substituted in the certificate proceeding. By the impugned notice, the petitioner alone was asked to deposit 40% of the certificate dues amount threatening coercive action. It is submitted that impugned notice and proceeding against the present petitioner are required to be set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits by referring the averments made in their counter affidavit that the father of the petitioner was allotted certain works in his capacity as Panchayat Sevak for construction of Cluster Shade and during the course of measurement, it was found that only the amount to Rs. 61,284/- were expended against the work and the rest of the amount had not been expended as per the work order. After the death of the said Ramjivan Hazam, the petitioner being the legal heir as son of the deceased certificate debtor has been served with the notice to deposit the 40% of the certain amount, which is legal and valid in the eyes of law.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned notice as well as relevant material brought on record, it appears that although the petitioner is son of the deceased, Ramjivan Hazam, he has never been properly substituted as legal heir in the said certificate proceeding case being CC No. 77/1998-99 in the court of respondent no. 2. If a person has not been substituted as legal heirs, proceeding against him could not be proceeded for recovery of the certificate amount since the basic requirement of law relating to the substitution of the deceased as certificate debtor by his legal heirs is not carried out and suddenly petitioner has been served with a demand notice to deposit 40% of the certificate amount without giving him any opportunity of show cause or to explain. In that view of the matter, the impugned notice cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned notice is set aside.

However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to substitute legal heirs of the deceased Ramjivan Hazam in accordance with law and proceed for realisation of certain dues as per the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.