COLLECTOR OF SULTANPUR AND ANOTHER versus RAJA JAGDISH PRASAD SAHI

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 05-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COLLECTOR OF SULTANPUR AND ANOTHER 
B 
c 
D 
v. 
RAJA JAGDISH PRASAD SAHi 
November 5, 1964 
• 
[K. SUBBA RAo, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JI.] 
V. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952 (V.P. Act 
No. l of 1952), •. 6(d)-V.P. Zamindari Abolition &: Land 
Reform1• 
Rules, r. BA-Agricultural income-tax dues-Adjustment against compen-
sation amount due-If obligatory. 
Pursuant to a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner proceed-
ing> were started against the respondent to recover instalment of ux, 
.........,d under U.P. Agricultural income-tax Act, 1949. The respondent 
moved tho High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for directing 
the appellants to refrain from recovering or taking any steps for the 
recovery by coercive proces•, and in the alternative, if any amount was 
held recoverable, for directing the Revenue authorities to adjust it against 
compensation bonds given to the respondent under the U.P. Zamindari Aboli-
tion & Land Reforms Act with respect to his zamindari which vested with 
State under the Act. The High Court held that the O>llector was bound 
to accept in satisfaction of the instalments of tax due the compensation 
bonds payable to the respondent under the Zamindari Ab.olition Act. 
In 
appeal 
HELD : (i) The Collector bad no option in the matter of adjmtment 
of the liability to pay agricultural income-tax against compensation amount 
due to the respondent, which was "still due''. [34 A-BJ 
E 
Rule 8-A of the Zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rule.-.; 1'> ln 
terms mandatory and obliges the CoHector to realise the tax jn the 
manner provided. 
The expression "without prejudice to the right of the 
State Government to recover dues" with which the Rule opens does not 
transform that duty into an option. The clause merely pro,·ides tbat the 
obligation imposed upon the O>llector of adjusting the duec. against com-
pensation will not prejudice the right of the State Go\-ernmcnt to re.:..~vcr 
F 
the dues by other means. [33 F-H] 
(ii) The case clearly fell within the terms of s. 6(d) and the benefit of 
Rule 8-A was admissible to the respondent. The tax assessed was for the 
period ending June 30, 1952. 
The assessment was made after the close of the previous year am! 
after the date of vesting but the income which was liable to tax was the 
income of the previous year that is before the date of vesting. (34 F-G I 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1014 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
April 7. 1960, of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous 
Writ No. 1562 of 1956. 
H 
C. B. Agarwala, N. D. Karkhanis and 0. P. Rana, for the 
appellants. 
T. N. Sethi and Din Dayal Sharma, for the respondent. 
JQ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1965) 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court; was delivered by 
A. 
Shah, 
J. Agricultural inc0me of the respondent-Raja 
J agdish Prasad Sabi-was assessed by the Collector of Sultanpur 
to tax under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act 3 of 1949 for 
the Fasli year 1359, corresponding to the period July 1, 1951 to 
June 30, 1952, and he was directed to pay the amount due in 
B· 
four equal instalments of Rs. 13,274-5-0 each. The respondent 
failed to pay the first and the second instalments which fell due 
respectively on December 9, 1952 and February 9, 1953. The 
Revenue authorities imposed upon the respondent liability to pay 
Rs. 4,400 in the aggregate as penalty for default in payment of the 
two instalments. 
c 
Pursuant to a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner of 
Sultanpur, proceedings were started against the respondent to 
recover Rs. 17,674-5-0 being the amount of the second instalment 
and penalty. 
The respondent then presented a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Judicature D 
at Allahabad for a writ directing the Collectors of Sultanpur and 
Allahabad to refrain from recovering or taking any steps for 
recovery of the amount claimed under thq certificate by coercive 
process, and in the alternative, if the amount or any portion thereof 
was held recoverable, for a writ directing the Revenue authorities 
to adjustthe amount found so payable against compensation bonds 
E 
given to the respondent under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and 
Land Reforms Act No. 1 of 19 51-hereinafter called "the Aboli-
tion Act". The High Court held that the recovery of penalty not 
being based on orders properly passed under s. 31 of the U.P. 
Agricultural In

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.