1 D.B.CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO.728/2010 DATE OF ORDER : 1/12/2010 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA Mr.Moti Singh, for the appellant. Heard Mr.Moti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission. 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. 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 S.D.O. 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 30th June, 2010. 2 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. 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 upto 26.10.2010. The said amount has not been deposited so far. The Single Bench in the facts & circumstances of the case, declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the intra court appeal has been preferred. Mr.Moti Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that it was necessary to grant opportunity of hearing u/s.13 of the Act of 1974, which has not been done in the instant case. Consequently, the attachment made is illegal. Learned counsel has also 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 3 u/s.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 S.D.O., which has not been decided so far. Hence, this Court may direct the S.D.O. to decide the application for depositing the loan amount in instalments. 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 difference 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 outrightly 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 S.D.O. on its own merits. So far as the submission of learned counsel that 4 initially, the proceedings were filed u/ss.228 & 229A of the Act of 1956 and thereafter, the same were converted u/s.13 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 stands dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. (ARUN MISHRA), CJ RANKAWAT JK, PS