CWP-5090/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5090/2010 Murlidhar Saini and anr. Versus. District Collector, Sikar (Recovery) (Rajasthan Land Revenue0, Sikar & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 19/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Ms. Anupama Parashar, for petitioners. Instant writ petition has been filed assailing the recovery notice which was served upon the petitioners under the Land Revenue Act, 1956 dt. 18/12/2009 (Ax.24). It appears from the record that a loan of Rs. 3,46,000/- was sanctioned on 14/12/1983 and, as alleged, a sum of Rs.2,54,100/- was disbursed to the petitioner. When the petitioner failed to repay the outstanding dues to the respondents, the respondents took possession of the Unit on 28/12/1991 and the same was put to auction in pursuance to the auction notice published in the daily news paper on 26/05/1992. From the sale of the Unit by public auction, the respondents could recovered only Rs. 3,50,000/- of which reference has been made in the communication CWP-5090/2010 2 sent to the petitioner dt. 03/04/1999. But since the outstanding dues in the loan account still could not be recovered even by disposal of the Unit, therefore, again a notice of recovery was served upon the petitioner under the Land Revenue Act for the balance amount against outstanding dues on 18/12/2009. Counsel submits that since the petitioner took loan in the year 1983 and Sec. 32-G was introduced by making amendment on 31/08/1985 in State Financial Corporation Act, which could not have been retrospectively invoked for making recovery of outstanding dues from the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the recovery notice, which has been served upon the petitioner dt. 18/12/2009, is wholly unwarranted. In support of his submissions, counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Company Cases, Volume 80 Page 140. The submissions made are without substance for the reasons that if the outstanding dues, could not be meted out by the respondent- Corporation despite the mortgaged property was put to auction, certainly the balance of CWP-5090/2010 3 outstanding dues could be recovered by the respondent-Corporation from the personal property of the petitioner as well and, in the instant case, against outstanding dues, the respondent-Corporation could recovered a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- after disposal of the Unit mortgaged, in such circumstances, the respondent-Corporation was justified in initiating the recovery proceedings against the original promoter to whom the loan was disbursed or the guarantor, as the case may be. So far as the submission made in regard to application of Section 32-G is concerned, suffice it to say that once provision has been introduced, the same can always be invoked by the respondent-Corporation for settlement of its dues and so far as the judgment on which counsel has placed reliance is concerned, the same is of no assistance in the facts of the instant case and it was a case where the procedure invoked by the corporation for making recovery of dues was under challenge. However, in the instant case, the corporation initiated proceedings to make recovery after due compliance of Section 32-G of the Act for which the respondents were justified and within their competence and under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. So far CWP-5090/2010 4 as the objection in regard to recovery notice under the Land Revenue Act dt. 18/12/2009 is concerned, the petitioner is always at liberty to raise objections available to him under law against the notice served. Consequently, this Court finds no substance in the writ petition and it is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.4/ 5090-CW-2010-final.doc