Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 562 (RAJ)

Ramdayal S/o Suwalal v. State of Rajasthan

2021-03-05

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer (for brevity “the Board”) whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 65 (2) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1956”), has been dismissed. 2. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board erred in failing to appreciate that service of notices sent to them through registered post was deemed to be sufficient only on account of acknowledgment receipt not being received back. He submitted that in absence of any evidence to show that the notices sent through registered post were, as a matter of fact, actually served upon them, no presumption of service could have been drawn. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the order dated 09.09.2019. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 4. The order impugned reveals that notices of the reference were sent to the petitioners through registered post with acknowledgment due and when neither the petitioners appeared in pursuance thereof nor the acknowledgment receipt was received back, the Board proceeded ex-parte treating the service upon the petitioners to be sufficient. If the notices are sent through registered post at correct address of the addressee, there is presumption of service. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as under:- “27. Meaning of service by post.-Where- any [Central Act] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression” serve” or either of the expressions ”give” or “send”“” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. ” 5. Similarly, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides as under:- Court may presume existence of certain facts. -The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. -The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustrations The Court may presume- (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx That the common course of business has been followed in particular case; As to Illustration (f)- The question, whether a letter was received. It is shown to have been posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances; 6. Sections 59 & 60 of the Act of 1956 permit service of summons through registered post. A three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of Har Charan Singh versus Shiv Rani & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 1284 , held as under:- “7. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 deals with the topic-'Meaning of service by post' and says that where any Central Act or Regulation authorises or requires any document to be served by post, then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting it by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. The section thus arises a presumption of due service or proper service if the document sought to be served is sent by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post to the addressee and such presumption is raised irrespective of whether any acknowledgment due is received from the addressee or not. It is obvious that when the section raises the presumption that the service shall be deemed to have been effected it means the addressee to whom the communication is sent must be taken to have known the contents of the document sought to be served upon him without anything more. Similar presumptions raised under Illustration (f) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act where under it is stated that the Court may presume that the common course of business has been followed in a particular case, that is to say, when a letter is sent by post by pre-paying and properly addressing it the same has been received by the addressee. Undoubtedly, the presumptions both under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under Section 114 of the Evidence Act are rebuttable but in the absence of proof to the contrary the presumption of proper service or effective service on the addressee would arise. In the instant case, additionally, there was positive evidence of the postman to the effect that the registered envelope was actually tendered by him to the appellant on November 10, 1966 but the appellant refused to accept. In other words, there was due service effected upon the appellant by refusal. In such circumstances, we are clearly of the view, that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant must be imputed with the knowledge of the contents of the notice which he refused to accept. It is impossible to accept the contention that when factually there was refusal to accept the notice on the part of the appellant he could not be visited with the knowledge of the contents of the registered notice because, in our view, the presumption raised under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act as well as under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is one of proper or effective service which must mean service of everything that is contained in the notice. It is impossible to countenance the suggestion that before knowledge of the contents of the notice could be imputed the sealed envelope must be opened and read by the addressee or when the addressee happens to be an illiterate person the contents should be read over to him by the postman or someone else. Such things do not occur when the addressee is determined to decline to accept the sealed envelope. It would, therefore, be reasonable to hold that when service is effected by refusal of a postal communication the addressee must be imputed, with the knowledge of the contents thereof and in our view, this follows upon the presumptions that are raised under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.” 7. It has not been case of the petitioners that the registered notices were not sent to them at their correct addresses. They have also not made any attempt to rebut the presumption drawn of service of notices upon them. It has not been case of the petitioners that the registered notices were not sent to them at their correct addresses. They have also not made any attempt to rebut the presumption drawn of service of notices upon them. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the Board has committed no error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 65 of the Act of 1956. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.