Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 29 (MP)

M. L. CHAURASIA v. TAHSILDAR, BALAGHAT

2002-01-04

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that no Court or authority or jurisdiction to issue Land Revenue Recovery certificate in view of S. 17 read with S. 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993, and there is specific bar under the said provisions. The challenge of the petitioner is to a recovery initiated under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Niyam, 1987 (Act No. 1 of 1988 ). Certain loan was advanced to the petitioner and revenue recovery certificate/overdraft was also drawn. Land Revenue Certificate amounting to Rs. 40,60,000/- has been received. Recovery of which is being made under the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. ( 2 ) THE reliefs claimed in the instant writ petition is to the following effect :- it is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to : (I) issue a writ in nature of writ of certiorari for quashing Annx. P/1 and further to declare that respondents 1, 3 and 4 have absolutely no legal authority or jurisdiction to proceed with recovery process under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987, as the same is barred under Central Act; (ii) to grant any other relief deemed proper to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3 ) SECTION 17 and 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are reproduced as below :"17. Jurisdiction, powers and authority of Tribunals.- (1) A Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain and decide applications from the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made, or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act. 18. Bar of jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers of authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. 18. Bar of jurisdiction.- On and from the appointed day, no Court or other authority shall have or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers of authority (except the Supreme Court, and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution) in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. " ( 4 ) BARE reading of Section 17 makes it clear that jurisdiction of the Tribunal is to decide the applications filed by the banks and financial institutions for recovery of debts due to a bank and financial institutions and that power and jurisdiction is barred to be exercised by any Court or other authority as per Section 18. The jurisdiction conferred under Section 17 on the Tribunal is ousted from the jurisdiction of the Court or other authority. The matters enumerated in Section 17 are barred. Under Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987, certificate of recovery can be sent directly for the recovery to the authorities mentioned therein which by itself is recoverable. Jurisdiction of M. P. Act cannot be said to be ousted in any manner by Sections 17 and 18 of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The said Act does not oust the jurisdiction in any manner which is to be exercised under Section 3 of Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. There is no overlapping between these two provisions. This Court in New Laxmi Oil Mills v. Bank of India, AIR 1998 MP 161 , examined the competence of the State to enact the law and the provisions of M. P. Act have been held to be intra vires. ( 5 ) THUS the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Act itself stands inoperative by the provisions of Section 18 read with Section 17 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 cannot be accepted. ( 6 ) THE provisions of two Acts are independent and there is no overlapping between these two Acts, the jurisdiction of the recovery of money by the Recovery Officer under M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 Act, is not ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. ( 7 ) THE writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. C. C. as per rules. Petition dismissed. .