Judgment ( 1. ) THE order passed in Writ Petition No. 4969/2008 (Smt. Savita ben Thakur Das Patel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 4972/2008 (Rupesh Thakur Das Patel Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others ). Since both these petitions involve a common question of law, they were heard together. ( 2. ) THE petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of recovery proceedings and notification dated 4. 3. 2008, Annexure P1, issued by the Tahsildar (respondent no. 3) in respect of proclamation of sale of their immovable property for recovery of dues of the Citizen cooperative Bank Limited (respondent no. 4) (in short, the Bank ). ( 3. ) THE petitioners are mother and son. They, for their business, took financial assistance of huge amount from the Bank after mortgaging their agricultural land in the form of security against the loan. The petitioners after paying some installments committed default. The Bank, therefore, initiated recovery proceedings against them under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies act, 1960 but did not pursue the proceedings and instead it took recourse for recovery of dues under the provisions of the Madhya pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (in short, the Adhiniyam ). The Bank sent a certificate on 10. 2. 2005 to the Collector for recovery of dues who, in turn, issued the Revenue recovery Certificate on 15. 2. 2005 against the petitioners. The tahsildar thereupon issued demand notices to the petitioners and when these notices were not honoured, he issued the impugned proclamation for sale of the immovable property of petitioners mortgaged with the Bank. The property was auctioned on 11. 4. 2008 and the sale was ultimately finalized in favour of one Surya developers being the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 20,21,000/ -. The auction purchaser has also deposited the amount with the Bank. ( 4. ) IT is pertinent to mention here that in Manoj Tarwala Vs. The state of Madhya Pradesh and others 2006 (3) M. P. H. T. 443 a division Bench of this Court has held that Revenue Recovery certificate issued at the instance of Bank is executable under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the proceedings initiated in similar matters by the Bank against several defaulters have been held to be legal and valid. ( 5. ( 5. ) THE only submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that their land, being an agricultural land measuring less than four hectares, could not have been attached and sold for the recovery of dues as the attachment and sale of such land is not permissible under section 147 read with 154-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land revenue Code (in short, the Code ). According to their learned counsel, the recovery proceedings against the petitioners were, therefore, bad in law and deserved to be quashed. The learned counsel for Bank, on the other hand, justified the validity of the recovery proceedings. ( 6. ) THE object and purpose of the Adhiniyam is to provide for the speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to the State government, Government Companies and certain categories of corporations and Banking Companies. The respondent, Bank, admittedly falls within the meaning of Banking Company as defined under section 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam and section 3 provides the procedure for recovery of dues of the Banking Company as arrear of land revenue under the Code. There is also a saving provision section 4 in the Adhiniyam which reads as under: 4. Savings. (1) Nothing in section 3 shall, (a)affect any interest of the State Government, a corporation, a Government company or any banking company in any property, created by any mortgage, charge, pledge or other encumbrance; or (b)affect any right or remedy against any person other than a person referred to in that section, in respect of a contract of indemnity or guarantee entered into in relation to an agreement referred to in that section or in respect of any interest referred to in clause (a ). (2) Where the property of any person referred to in section 3 is subject to any mortgage, charge, pledge or other encumbrance in favour of the State Government, a Corporation, a Government company or a banking company, then (a)in every case of a pledge or hypothecation of goods, proceedings shall first be taken for sale of goods pledged or hypothecated and if the proceeds of such sale are less than the sum due, then proceedings shall be taken for recovery of the balance as arrear of land revenue: provided that where the Collector is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do for ensuring the recovery of the sum due to the State Government or to a Corporation a government company or a banking company, as the case may be, he may for reasons to be recorded, direct proceedings to be taken for recovery of the sum due, as arrear of land revenue before or at the same time the proceedings to be taken for sale of the goods pledged; (b) in every case of a mortgage, charge or other encumbrance on immovable property, such property or, as the case may be, the interest of the defaulter therein, shall first be sold in proceedings for recovery of the sum due from that person as arrear of land revenue, and any other proceedings may be taken thereafter only if the Collector certifies that there is no prospect of realization of the entire sum due through the first mentioned process within a reasonable time. ( 7. ) SECTION 147 of the Code enumerates more than one process for recovery of arrear of land revenue. Under clause (b) the process provided for recovery is by attachment and sale of the holding but proviso to the section clearly states that process specified in clause (b) shall not permit attachment and sale of holding where the defaulter holds less than six hectares of land in the scheduled area. Section 154-A was substituted in the Code by Madhya Pradesh Act no. 1 of 1971 and it provides where the arrear of land revenue is due in respect of a holding the Tahsildar, after attachment of holding under clause (b) of section 147, shall let out that holding to any person other than the defaulter for a period not exceeding ten years upon such terms and conditions as the Collector may fix. ( 8. ( 8. ) A combined reading of sub-section (2) and clause (b) of the saving section 4 of Adhiniyam makes it clear that where the property of any person (defaulter) referred to in section 3 is subject to any mortgage in favour of the State Government, a Corporation, a government Company or a Banking Company then in every case of a mortgage on immovable property, such property, or the interest of the defaulter therein shall first be sold in proceedings for recovery of the sum due from that person as arrear of land revenue and any other proceedings would be taken thereafter only when the Collector certifies that there is no prospect of realization of the entire sum due through sale within a reasonable time. This provision especially deals with the recovery of dues as arrear of land revenue from a person whose immovable property is mortgaged with the State Government, a Corporation, a Government Company or a Banking Company by first direct sale of that immovable property. The Saving provision of section 4 of the Adhiniyam is, therefore, a special provision whereas the provisions of sections 147 and 154-A of the Code are general in nature. This is also obvious from the fact that sections 147 and 154-A do not deal, in any manner, with the recovery of dues of loan obtained by mortgaging the land in favour of the State Government, a Corporation, a Government Company or a Banking Company. The question now is which of the two conflicting provisions, one of the adhiniyam and the other of Code, would apply in the case at hand. The rule of harmonious construction in this regard is well settled that out of the two apparently conflicting provisions, if a special provision is made on a certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general provision. The principle is expressed in the maxims generalia specialibus non derogant (General things do not derogate from special things) and Generalibus specialia derogant (Special things derogate from general things ). These principles have also been applied in resolving a conflict between two different Acts. (See justice G. P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th edition, pp. 141, 142 ). I have already held that the Saving provision of section 4 of the Adhiniyam is a special provision and, therefore, this provision would prevail over the general provisions of sections 147 and 154-A of the Code. (See justice G. P. Singhs Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th edition, pp. 141, 142 ). I have already held that the Saving provision of section 4 of the Adhiniyam is a special provision and, therefore, this provision would prevail over the general provisions of sections 147 and 154-A of the Code. Thus, since the agricultural land of petitioners was mortgaged with the Bank as a security for financial assistance, the recovery of sum due from them by selling the land through auction was neither illegal nor invalid. ( 9. ) A submission was also made on behalf of the Bank that the dues of the Bank were not arrear of land revenue but were recovered as arrear of land revenue under section 155 of the Code and that an arrear of land revenue is distinct and separate from money recoverable as arrear of land revenue. It is not necessary to decide whether sections 147 and 154-A of the Code do not apply for recovery of any sum whatsoever recoverable as arrear of land revenue because I have held that it has no application for recovery as arrear of land revenue of loan secured by mortgage of immovable property in favour of the State Government, a Corporation, a government Company or a Banking Company. ( 10. ) THE petitions fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs.