http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SARDAR DILSHAR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT12/09/1995

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, B.L. HANSARIA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal by special leave arises from an order dated October 24,  1980 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court.      The undisputed  facts  are  that  the  appellant  is  a partner of Dr. Sahib Singh and Sons. While doing business in Delhi, the  workmen had  an adjudication in the Labour Court under s.33-C(2)  of the  Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947, for recovery of  arrears of  salary, bonus etc. The Labour Court had certified under s.33-C(1) that a sum of Rs.62,843.50 was due to  them  and  issued  a  certificate  to  the  District Collector to  have it recovered from the partnership firm as arrears of  land revenue.  It is not disputed before us that on July  8, 1980,  the bailiff  of the Collector had gone to the appellant  and sought  to attach his movable properties. He then  assured the bailiff that he would appear before the Collector but  admittedly he  never turned  up. On  July 20, 1980 the  bailiff came  with a warrant of arrest against the appellant. Calling  the order  of arrest in question, a writ petition came  to be  filed but  was  dismissed.  Thus  this appeal by special leave.      It is  contended by  learned counsel  for the appellant that the procedure prescribed in ss. 67 and 69 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Punjab Act No.17 of 1987) is unfair, improper  and   vitiated  Articles   21  and   14   of   the Constitution. He urged that without prior notice of arrest a defaulter cannot be arrested. Neither Section 67 nor Section 69 prescribes  such  a  procedure.  Therefore,  it  will  be unjust, oppressive and arbitrary exercise of power.      We do not find any substance in the contention. Section 67 enumerates  various modes  in which  the arrears  of land revenue could  be recovered  from any  person or more in the manner prescribed  thereunder. One  of the  clause, which is clause (b)  envisages that  recovery could be effected is by arrest and  detention of his person. Section 69 provides the procedure in that behalf which reads as follows :      "69. Arrest and detention of defaulter -      (1) At any time after an arrear of land-      revenue has  accrued  a  Revenue-Officer      may issue a warrant directing an officer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    named therein  to arrest  the  defaulter      and  bring   him  before   the   Revenue      Officer.      (2)  When  the   defaulter  is   brought      before the  Revenue Officer, the Revenue      Officer may cause him to be taken before      the Collector,  or may  keep  him  under      personal  restraint  for  a  period  not      exceeding ten  days  and  then,  if  the      arrear is  still unpaid, cause him to be      taken before the Collector.      (3)  When  the   defaulter  is   brought      before the  Collector, the Collector may      issue an  order to the officer in charge      of  the  civil  jail  of  the  district,      directing him  to confine  the defaulter      in the  jail for  such  period  and  not      exceeding one month from the date of the      order, as the Collector thinks fit.      (4)  The process of arrest and detention      shall  not   be   executed   against   a      defaulter who  is a  female, a  minor, a      lunatic or an idiot."      A reading  thereof clearly  indicates that when arrears of land  revenue has  accrued the  Revenue Officer may issue warrant directing  the officer  named therein  to arrest the defaulter and  bring him  before the Revenue Officer, who is empowered to keep the defaulter under personal restraint for a period  not exceeding  10 days.  Even then, if arrears are not paid,  cause him  to be taken before the Collector. Sub- section (3)  gives power  to the  Collector to  take further action thereon.  When the  defaulter has been brought before him, the  Act envisages that Collector may issue an order to the officer  in charge of the civil jail of the district and direct the defaulter to be confined in the jail for a period not exceeding  one month  from the date of the order, as the Collector thinks fit.      It is  seen that  a procedure  has laid down mentioning the mode  in which  recovery could be effected. The Act does not contemplate  issuance of any prior notice before warrant of arrest is issued. When the movable properties were sought to be  attached, the  appellant himself  had  undertaken  to appear before  the Collector  but he did not turn up. Rather he avoided  the process.  Therefore,  the  question  whether prior notice  should be  given  has  become  redundant.  The procedure of issuance of prior notice tends to frustrate the effectivity of  clause (b)  of s.67 of the Act and could aid as a  lever to  avoid process  of  recovery  by  arrest  and detention.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.