B.C. Patel, C.J.

1. One Sheesh Ram, the original claimant in certain land acquisition proceedings, along with Ram Swarup moved the reference Court (Addl. District Judge, Delhi) in LAC No. 134 of 1990. It transpires that during the pendency of those proceedings, Sheesh Ram died on 3rd Aug., 1986. His seven legal heirs were brought on record in the proceedings before the Addl. District Judge, Delhi who ultimately made an order on 25th Jan., 1994; awarding compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 76,550 per bigha, solarium, along with other benefits.

2. The present petition is directed, inter alia, against the notice of demand under Section 156 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short " the") issued by the Department, a copy of which is produced at p. 26 of the paper book. The notice is in the name of Braham Parkash, legal heir of Sheesh Ram for the asst. yr: 1996-97 raising a demand of Rs. 57,75,545. Thereafter, a notice, which is also impugned, under Section 221(1) of thewas issued on 19th June, 2003, a copy of which is at p. 29, Annex. 2. It is addressed to Braham Parkash calling upon him to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed for nonpayment of the dues, These notices appear to have been issued in consequence of the order dt. 25th Feb., 2002 pursuant to a notice issued under Section 148 of the. But, we find that the notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of Sheesh Ram when he was no more. In other words, it was a notice issued to a dead person. Obviously, the notice could not have been served upon the deceased. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the notice under Section 148 was served on the petitioner either.

3. On behalf of the Revenue, it is submitted that Section 148 of themandates service of the notice on the assessed, however, in view of Section 2(7) r/w Section 159(2)(b) of the Act, the petitioner, being a legal representative of the deceased Sheesh Ram, would be deemed to be an assessed. When we put pointed question as to Section 148 was served on the deemed assessed or not, nothing was placed before us to show that any notice was served even on the deemed assessed. As such, it is clear that notice under Section 148 was neither served on the original assessed nor on the deemed assessed. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings are bad in law as there is breach of the principles of natural justice as well as the mandatory provisions contained in Section 148. The principle of audi alterem partem ought to have been followed by the Revenue. On this ground, we quash the notice of demand, the notice dt. 19th June, 2003 as also the order of assessment dt. 17th March, 2003 and order of penalty. In other words, all proceedings, notices, orders pursuant to the said notice under Section 148 are quashed and set aside, The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No orders as to costs.