Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 658 (MP)

Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank v. Ramniwas Agrawal

2002-07-12

ARUN MISHRA

body2002
ORDER : In the Writ Petition No. 517/2002, the petitioner is challenging the orders Annexure-P/7 passed by SDO, P/8 passed by Additional Collector, P/1 passed by the Commissioner, Rew Division, Rewa and P/2 passed by the Board of Revenue on the ground that when the recovery officer; Tehsildar has passed the order in the proceedings under the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987, no further appeal/revision is maintainable against the order/proceedings of Tehsildar taken under the said Act. 2. In W. P. No. 945/2002, a similar objection was raised by respondent No. 1 to 3, which was overruled by the Tehsildar, Singrauli as per order dated 27-3-2001 which was challenged before the Collector, Sidhi. Collector returned the revision on the ground that the Collector has no jurisdiction. Thereafter it was presented to Additional Commissioner, Rewa. The Commissioner entertained the revision and issued notice as per order P/1 which has been challenged on the ground of jurisdiction. 3. In the W. P. No. 517/2002 a recovery certificate has been issued under M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam by the petitioner Rewa Sidhi Gramin Bank constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. An objection was raised by the respondent that in view of provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, proceedings are not maintainable under the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987. Tehsildar rejected the objection as per order passed on 24-12-1999. Aggrieved by the order overruling the objection, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the SDO. SDO dismissed the appeal. Respondent No. 1 preferred the revision before the Collector. Collector also dismissed the revision. Aggrieved by order passed by Collector respondent No. 1 preferred another revision before the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa. Revision has been allowed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa as per order P/1 holding that recovery for which the certificate has been issued, is more than Rs. 10 lacs, as such provision of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 are applicable hence recovery cannot be made under the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987. Petitioner Bank preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order P/1 passed by the Commissioner. Board of Revenue as per order P/2 passed on 20-8-2001 has dismissed the revision. Petitioner Bank preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue against the order P/1 passed by the Commissioner. Board of Revenue as per order P/2 passed on 20-8-2001 has dismissed the revision. Hence, petitioner preferred this writ petition. 4. Shri S. K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Tehsildar/recovery officer under the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987, cannot be subject to further appeal/revision before the revenue Court. 5. Shri D. S. Chouhan learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that order passed is proper even if revision/appeal is not maintainable the Tehsildar can not be allowed to proceed with recovery under M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987. 6. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987, provides that every certificate issued under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application (including any application under the Arbitration Act, 1940) or in any reference to arbitration and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or intended to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. 7. The Act is special Act and no right of appeal or revision has been conferred in the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1987, the order passed by recovery officer is final. Petitioner has placed reliance on decision of this Court in W. P. No. 5990/2001 decided by brother Justice Dipak Mishra on 29-1-2002, in which it has been opined that no appeal/revision lies against order passed by the recovery officer in the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 under the M. P. Land Revenue Code. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed. 8. Shri D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel submits that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction as such the orders passed should not be quashed as writ cannot be issued to revive an order which is without jurisdiction. I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed. 8. Shri D. S. Chouhan, learned counsel submits that the Tehsildar has no jurisdiction as such the orders passed should not be quashed as writ cannot be issued to revive an order which is without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the provisions of M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodh Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 are independent and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 does not oust the jurisdiction of recovery officer under the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodh Rashiyon Ki Vasulki) Adhiniyam, 1987 to proceed with the recovery. This question has been considered by me in W. P. No. 1858/2000 (Dushyant Singh and others vs. Collector Sidhi and ors.) decided on 22-3-2002 and it was held that : 3. Submission is that recovery of debt Act of 1993 makes the provision of M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 inapplicable with respect to the matters which are required to be decided and adjudicated upon by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 18 r/w section 19 of the Recovery Act. Section 18 contain bar as to jurisdiction, no court or other authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters specified in Section 17. Section 17 is quoted 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 the debts due to such banks and financial institutions. (2) An Appellate Tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed any the jurisdiction, powers and authority to entertain appeals against any order made or deemed to have been made, by a Tribunal under this Act." It is clear from a bare reading of Section 17 that 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 the debts due to such banks and financial institutions. Under Section 19 procedure is prescribed for filing application. Section 34 of the Recovery Act contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to the provision of the Recovery Act on any other law for the time being in force. Under Section 19 procedure is prescribed for filing application. Section 34 of the Recovery Act contains a non obstante clause which gives overriding effect to the provision of the Recovery Act on any other law for the time being in force. An application is in the nature of civil suit which may be filed by the Bank if the bank so chooses in case amount is more than Rs. 10 lac, it cannot be doubted that it has to be filed before the Recovery Tribunal under Debt Recovery Act 1993. The scope of M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 is entirely different. No application/regular suit is required to be filed for seeking a decree or order. The bank is itself competent under Section 3 of the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 to draw and issue a recovery certificate, for recovery of dues as an arrears of revenue certificate under Section 3(1) of the M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. The amount can be recovered as per certificate issued. Certificate issued under Section 3(1) may be withdrawn by the authority issuing such certificate at any time. Under sub-section (2) of section 3 of Act of 1987 provides that the Collector or his subordinate officer specified under sub-section (1) on receiving the certificate shall take steps to recover the amount stated therein as arrear of land revenue under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. Sub-section (3) of section 3 provides that no suit for the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie in a Civil Court against any person in respect of whom a certificate for recovery of such sum has been issued under sub-section (1). In my opinion, there is no conflict between the provisions of M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 and Debt Recovery Act, 1993. It is open for the bank to issue a revenue recovery certificate, even if amount is more than Rs. 10 lac, if the case falls under the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3, it is open for the Bank to choose remedy of adjudication process before Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Debt Recovery Act, 1993 or issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate under Act of 1987. 10 lac, if the case falls under the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 3, it is open for the Bank to choose remedy of adjudication process before Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Debt Recovery Act, 1993 or issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate under Act of 1987. Thus, in my opinion, Section 34 of 1993 Act does not bar and supersede the jurisdiction of the recovery officer and the Bank to issue the certificate for recovery and to effect it under M. P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987. 9. In W. P. No. 517/2002, the orders Annexure-P/7 passed by SDO, P/8 passed by Additional Collector, P/1 passed by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, Rewa and P/2 passed by the Board of Revenue are set aside. Writ petition is allowed. Tehsildar to proceed in accordance with law. 10. In W. P. No. 945/2002 order Annexure-P/1 is quashed. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, costs on parties.