Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1987 (RAJ)

Amarat Lal v. UCO Bank

2010-12-01

ARUN MISHRA, PRAKASH TATIA

body2010
Hon'ble MISHRA, CJ.—Heard Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 11.11.2010 passed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9761/2010. The writ petition has been dismissed in which the proceedings initiated by the S.D.O. Bhopalgarh had been challenged in Case No. 1/2010 for recovery of arrears of loan. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant had obtained a loan of Rs. 3,30,000/- from the UCO Bank for recovery of which attachment warrant with respect to property of the appellant was issued by the SDO under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties), Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974". The recovery has been ordered with respect to amount of Rs. 4,84,297/- and the appellant was required to deposit it by 30.6.2010. There was a refusal to accept the notice. Consequently, it was affixed on the house of the appellant as apparent from the service report on record. On failure to deposit the amount, attachment warrant had been issued directing attachment of the property. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the attachment, the writ petition had been preferred by the appellant before the Single Bench. The Single Bench, while entertaining the writ petition on 25.10.2010, recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 4 lacs with the respondents upon 26.10.2010. The said amount had not been deposited so far. The Single Bench in the facts and circumstances of the case, declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the intra Court appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it was necessary to grant opportunity of hearing under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, which has not been lone in the instant case. Consequently, the attachment made is illegal. Learned counsel has submitted that initially, the provisions of Sections 228 and 229A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956" were invoked. Later on, the proceedings have been converted for recovery under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, hence, issuance of attachment warrant is illegal. Consequently, the attachment made is illegal. Learned counsel has submitted that initially, the provisions of Sections 228 and 229A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956" were invoked. Later on, the proceedings have been converted for recovery under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, hence, issuance of attachment warrant is illegal. Learned counsel has also submitted that an application for depositing the loan amount in instalments has also been filed before the SDO, which has not been decided so far. Hence, this Court may direct the SDO to decide the application for depositing the loan amount in instalments. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length, we are of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the intra Court appeal. Section 13 of the Act of 1974 deals with the sale of property and before that, an opportunity is necessary to be given. In the instant case, the recovery notice had been issued, which was refused to be accepted and as a consequence, it was affixed on the house of the appellant. Thereafter the attachment of the property has been ordered. There is different between the "attachment" and the "sale". Consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Apart from that we find that admittedly, the loan has been taken by the appellant. Thus, no case is made out for making any interference outright by this Court in the proceedings of attachment and recovery. In case, any application for depositing the loan amount in instalments has been filed by the appellant, obviously it has to be considered by the SDO on its own merits. So far as the submission of learned counsel that initially, the proceedings were filed under Sections 228 and 229A of the Act of 1956 and thereafter, the same were converted under Section 3 of the Act of 1974, is concerned, we do not find that any, illegality has been committed while converting the proceedings because recovery can be made under any of the provisions. Consequently, this intra Court appeal being devoid of merit stand dismissed.