M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.)THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges notice dated 4.9.2008 (P -3) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sirsa, calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,023/ - being Tax Deducted at Source (TDS). The demand for TDS has been raised on account of interest for enhanced amount of compensation in respect of acquired agricultural land belonging to the predecessor -in -interest of the petitioner. As substantive question of law is involved, we are not influenced by the paltry sum which is sought to be recovered as TDS.
(2.)BRIEF facts of the case are that Shri Kartar Singh, father of the petitioner was owner of land situated in village Ottu, Tehsil Rania, District Sira. On 9.5.200 the said land was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the 1894 Act') for construction of Darba Ghaggar Drain. On 15.10.2001, award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The father of the petitioner preferred reference under Section 18 of the 1894 Act for enhancement of compensation (Reference No. 918LA of 2004) in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. The said reference was consolidated with other land references, which were decided vide award dated 14.6.2007 (P -2). The land reference was eventually allowed partly vide short order dated 11.3.2008. A sum of Rs. 5,61,000/ - per acre was awarded as compensation for nehri land (P -1). On 14.6.2007, the petitioner received the compensation being the legal heir of Shri Kartar Singh. On 4.9.2008, respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner raising the demand of Rs. 4,023/ - on account of TDS on the amount of interest of compensation received by the petitioner (P -3).
The petitioner has filed the instant petition with the grievance that as per Section 194LA of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act') payment of compensation or enhanced compensation or the consideration or the enhanced consideration on account of compulsory acquisition of agricultural land could not be subjected to deduction of an amount equal to 10% of such sum as income -tax. It is claimed that the land belonging to the petitioner is covered by the expression 'agricultural l and' as defined in the explanation.

(3.)IN the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents the factual position has not been disputed. It has, however, been asserted that the demand has rightly been raised. It has been pointed out that due to inadvertent mistake of the concerned official the omission had occurred which was highlighted by the Audit Department Haryana vide their letter dated 4.7.2008. Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to deposit the amount of TDS. It has further been urged that the instant petition is premature as the petitioner failed to give any reply to the impugned notice dated 4.9.2008. The respondents have also placed reliance on Section 194A of the Act which prescribes that any person who is responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, was obliged to deduct income tax at the rates in force at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode.