JUDGMENT : 1. By preferring this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-partner in M/s. Nanavati Associates seeks quashment of notices dated 19th May 2007 and 11th April 2007 issued by the Mamlatdar, Alien Recovery Branch, Ahmedabad respondent herein [annexed as Annexures “A” & “B” respectively], seeking recovery of the amount due under the Land Revenue register to the tune of Rs. 7,72,719/=; in so far as the petitioners are not related to the said recovery, as the said amount is to be recovered from M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. 2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case on hand, for the purpose of appreciating controversy in its proper perspective, are enumerated thus : 3. The petitioner is partner of M/s. Nanavati Associates, which is a registered partnership firm, engaged in the legal profession since 1996 and registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1956 and having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title of the writ application. Relying upon Notification No. DA.M.29/87/Adhak/2029/4409/85 dated 3rd July 1989 of the Revenue Department of the State, the respondent issued a notice dated 11th April 2007 to M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited at the office address of the petitioner, despite the fact that it being the office premises of the petitioner and not of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited, and whereby, the petitioner has no relevance with the said notice. Further, the respondent had threatened the petitioner with coercive recovery of due revenue amount by sealing the office premises of the petitioner, in order to settle the revenue dues of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited, despite the fact that the petitioner has no relevance with the said firm. The petitioner clarified that the said office premises at which notice had been served, is of the petitioner-firm and not of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited and stated that it was a misconceived notice, as the said premises is owned by the petitioner and not by M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited, there is no question of sealing it to settle the dues of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. 4. 4. Yet again, by another notice dated 4th May 2007 addressed to M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited, the respondent authority reiterated its claim and threatened the petitioner with coercive recovery of the due revenue amount by sealing the office premises of the petitioner-firm, in order to settle due revenue amount of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. The petitioner again tendered its reply dated 22nd May 2007 pointing out to the respondent authority that the office premises mentioned as registered office premises of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Service Private Limited in a notice issued is actually the office premises owned by and under possession of the petitioner, and the said office premises in question is not and was never a registered office of M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited. Since, the entire action of issuance of repeated notices to the petitioner-firm is wholly misconceived, misleading on facts as well as on law, the petitioner has moved this Application under Article 226 of the Constitution; as aforestated. 5. Heard Shri Prabhav A Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. Hardik Soni, learned AGP for the respondent. 6. It is vehemently argued by learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent-authority has wrongly issued Notice dated 11th April 2007 to M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited at the office address of the petitioner-firm. That, the office premises of the petitioner does not belong to the said M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited and the petitioner has no relevance with M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited. That, the respondent-authority has threatened the petitioner that unless the amount due under the land revenue register to the tune of Rs. 7,72,719/= is paid, coercive recovery would be resorted by sealing the office premises of the petitioner in order to settle the dues of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out that, in fact, the said firm viz., M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as, “the said Company”] has been dissolved way back in the year 2002. 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out that, in fact, the said firm viz., M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as, “the said Company”] has been dissolved way back in the year 2002. That, in fact, as per the information of the petitioner, at the relevant point of time ie., in the year 1992, a lease was sought for by the said dissolved company for granite quarry and the Government was pleased to allot 2 Hectares of land to the said Company and thereafter, upon a further request being made to the Government by the Directors of the said Company to sanction additional land, the said request was partly granted by allotment of additional four hectares of land. However, even thereafter, as the land allotted was not found to be sufficient for granite quarry, the said Company requested the Government to terminate the lease, which was never opposed or replied to, against by the Government. And therefore, it was understood that the agreement between the said Company and the Government stood terminated. The petitioner was never in possession of the said land. That, the reply of the notice was also given by the petitioner on 24th April 2007 clarifying that the said office premises ie., at the place where notice has been served by the respondent, is of the petitioner-firm and not that of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. 8. It was pointed out by the learned advocate that the said notice being misconceived, as the same has been addressed to M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited at the address of the petitioner-firm, which is owned by the petitioner. Hence, there is no question of applying seal to the premises of the petitioner-firm to settle the dues of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited. 9. It is further submitted that the office premises owned by and in possession of the petitioner is not and can never be registered office of the above said Company. However, again a fresh notice came to be issued to the said Company on 19th May 2007 demanding to fulfill the obligation failing which the authority will start initiating coercive recovery by sealing the office premises of the petitioner. However, again a fresh notice came to be issued to the said Company on 19th May 2007 demanding to fulfill the obligation failing which the authority will start initiating coercive recovery by sealing the office premises of the petitioner. That, the petitioner is not concerned with the said notice issued by the respondent, as the authority is misusing powers conferred upon it and thereby had threatened the petitioner of coercive action to settle the revenue amount, which is due from the aforesaid Company by sealing the office premises owned by and in exclusive possession of the petitioner. Hence, it was requested by Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the petitioner to quash the impugned Notices issued by the respondent authority by allowing this petition. 10. Countering the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, learned AGP Shri Harik Soni appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submitted that M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited had inscribed its registered address as “8th Floor, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380 009.,” while applying for mining lease in Form “A” before the District Collector, Mining Branch, District-Sabarkantha at Himatnagar. That, even in an application for grant of additional 8 hectares of land for Granite quarry dated 1st January 1993, addressed to the Collector, Sabarkantha District, the registered office of M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited is shown as, “8th Floor, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380 009”. That, an aggregate amount of Rs. 7,72,619=40p. stood due and recoverable from the said Firm towards revenue dues and interest surcharge calculated @ 5% per annum. Hence, as per the Notification No. DA.M 29/87 Adhak/ 2029/4409/85 dated 3rd July 1989 of the Revenue Department of the State of Gujarat, the respondent had issued a Notice dated 11th April 2007 to M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited at its registered address at 41, Premier House, Opp. Gurudwara, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. That, the Collector, Sabarkantha has not been joined as party respondent by the petitioner herein, as it is the authority which has issued certificate of recovery of the revenue dues from the above said Company. 11. Gurudwara, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. That, the Collector, Sabarkantha has not been joined as party respondent by the petitioner herein, as it is the authority which has issued certificate of recovery of the revenue dues from the above said Company. 11. Learned AGP has placed reliance upon documents which are in the nature of Form 18 [Notice of Situation/Change of Situation of Registered Office] & Form 32 of the Companies Act, 1956 wherein address of the petitioner is shown by the concerned Directors, as the registered office so also it describes appointment of & change amongst the Directors of the said Company. That, the revenue amount which is required to be recovered cannot be withheld by allowing this petition; as requested. That, the orders passed by the District Collector, Sabarkantha dated 17th January 2003 since was not challenged by the petitioner, the action initiated through the present proceedings cannot be entertained by quashing the impugned notices. Learned AGP lastly urged to dismiss the present writ application with costs. 12. Considering facts of the case, material placed on the record as well as arguments advanced for and on behalf of the respective parties, it appears that in the year 1992, M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited applied for allotment of land admeasuring 10 Hec for the purpose of granite mining and in response to which, the District Collector, Sabarkantha vide communication No. AGH/QL/2033 dated 30th November 1992 allotted 2 Hectares of land to the said company for granite quarry. 13. As the requirement of the land was 10 Hectares by the said Company, by a communication dated 14th December 1992 addressed to the Collector, Mining Department, Sabarkantha, it was pointed out by the said Company that the area of 2 Hectares allotted would not be viable for the purpose of business and therefore, the case may be reconsidered for grant of 10 Hectares of land, so as to make the project viable and profitable. It appears that a reminder dated 1st January 1993 was issued by the said Company to the Collector, Sabarkantha reiterating the request made earlier vide communication dated 14th December 1992. 14. It further appears from the documents available on record that by an Order dated 20th March 1992, the said Company was granted lease over the land admeasuring 4 Hectares for a period of 10 years, on certain terms and conditions stipulated therein. 14. It further appears from the documents available on record that by an Order dated 20th March 1992, the said Company was granted lease over the land admeasuring 4 Hectares for a period of 10 years, on certain terms and conditions stipulated therein. The address of the said company in all these communications is shown as, “8th Floor, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad 380 009”. The said Company entered into a mining lease on 8th February 1993, and thereafter, vide communication dated 10th January 1996, it requested the Collector, Sabarkantha to terminate the said lease agreement on the plea that it was not interested to carry out further work on the leased mines, and therefore, the Company surrendered the lease mines and thereby made a request to take back possession of the said lease mines. 15. Thereafter, it appears that no further correspondence exchanged between the District Collector, Sabarkantha and the said Company, nor any order appears on record from the office of the Collector, Sabarkantha. Nevertheless, it appears from the record that on 7th September 2002, in Section I of Part-III of the Gazette of India, a notice has been issued in pursuant to Section 560 [5] of the Companies Act, 1956, striking off names of certain companies from the register, in which name of the said Company has been enlisted at Serial No. 15703. Thus, by virtue of Notification No. ROC/Guj/56005/2001 dated 20th August 2002, the said Company stood dissolved. 16. Thereafter, it appears from the record that by three different notices dated 11th April 2007, 4th May 2007 and 19th May 2007 issued to the said Company at the address shown therein, an intimation has been given with regard to fulfillment of its obligation to satisfy the demand of Rs. 7,72,719/= towards the revenue dues. The said amount also includes surcharge over the amount due and unpaid. 17. Since the outstanding dues were not paid, by a Notice dated 19th May 2007 addressed to the said Company at its registered office at 41, Premier House, Opp. 7,72,719/= towards the revenue dues. The said amount also includes surcharge over the amount due and unpaid. 17. Since the outstanding dues were not paid, by a Notice dated 19th May 2007 addressed to the said Company at its registered office at 41, Premier House, Opp. Gurudwara, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Thaltej, Ahmedabad 380 054, it was informed that after a period of time stipulated therein, if the dues are not cleared, immovable and movable properties of the said Company would be seized by the respondent-authority, to which a reply appears to have been given by the petitioner herein informing the concerned authority that M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited has been dissolved and is not in existence and that it was not the office of the said firm, where notice had been served. 18. Thereafter, on 22nd May 2007, in connection with the second notice issued on the aforesaid Company which was re-directed at the address of the petitioner, the petitioner herein informed that the respondent M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited's registered office is not and was never at 41, Premier House, Opp. Gurudwara, Thaltej, Ahmedabad. 19. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that at the said address, there is the office of M/s. Nanavati Associates, which is the office of advocates. Though clarified, nonetheless, it appears that the third notice came to be issued to the said Company at the address of the petitioner herein demanding an amount of Rs. 7,72,619/= under the land revenue, directing to pay the amount, failing which auction of movable/immovable properties would be made by the respondent authority on 19th June 2007. 20. Now, from the documents produced on the record by learned AGP during the course of hearing of the present writ application, it appears that in Form No. 32, prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956, the particulars presented by the said M/s. Kunal Salemark & Services Private Limited, were presented by one of the Directors on 15th April 1991, wherein, certain names have been shown as Directors of the said Company, and in yet another Form No. 32, submitted by the said Company to the Registrar of Companies on 27th November 1991, change in the particulars of appointment of certain Directors has been notified to the authorities. At the same time, in Form No. 18 produced on record by learned AGP, the said company on 15th April 1991 notified change of situation of its registered office to the Registrar of Companies situated at 801, Popular House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Thus, there is nothing on record produced by the respondent-authority as to how the petitioner-firm herein is connected with the said Company. It is informed by the petitioner that the above said Company is not having its office at the said premises where the petitioner-firm is having its office. Nowhere, the respondent authority has held the petitioner-firm liable to pay the dues of the aforesaid Company. 21. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is not connected with the above said Company and no documents are brought on the record to show any connection of the present petitioner with the said Company. It appears that the above said Company stood dissolved by virtue of Notification No. ROC/Guj/56005/2001 dated 20th August 2002 which has been duly published in the Gazette of India on 7th September 2002, issued under Section 560 [5] of the Companies Act, 1956, striking off names of certain companies from the register; including that of the said Company. 22. Certainly, the respondent-authority can recover its revenue dues from the person/s concerned, however, there is nothing on the record to suggest as to how the present petitioner is in any way connected with the above said Company, or he is responsible to satisfy the revenue dues, as demanded by the impugned notices. Hence, the impugned Notices as at Annexures “A” & “B” to the memo of writ application deserves to be quashed, being issued without application of mind at the address of the petitioner. 23. Resultantly, the present writ application is allowed. Rule nisi made absolute to the aforestated extent. Notices dated 19th May 2007 and 11th April 2007 issued by the respondent herein in the name of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited at the address of the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and set-aside. Interim relief stands confirmed with no separate order as to costs. Rule nisi made absolute to the aforestated extent. Notices dated 19th May 2007 and 11th April 2007 issued by the respondent herein in the name of M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited at the address of the petitioner herein are hereby quashed and set-aside. Interim relief stands confirmed with no separate order as to costs. This Court makes it clear that the right of respondent-authority to recover revenue dues from the said M/s. Kunal Sales Mark & Services Private Limited, through its Directors/Managing Agents, which may exist, can be taken care of by the authority concerned by initiation of appropriate proceedings against the correct persons.