LS?^"~& C 1. IB THE HI8H COURT W J(TOICAT B AT J»BA&PUR MP WRIT PETITIOH NO.^|S'(c> O QF 2000 PISTITIOBER Vlshwnath Singh Pocte Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Khocbahra Singh Porte Occupation - Cultivation R/o Vlllage Munmuna Tehsil Pandariya Distrlct Kaiiardha MP Pcesident of Krishi Vikas Samitl Vlllage Munmuna VEKSUS BBSPOBDB>TS 1. State of Madhya Pradesh Through Collector, Karardlia MP .V L 2. The State Eank Of India Through Branch Manager Branch Pandariya Tehsil Pandariya District Kaaardha MP 3. TheSub-Divisional Officer Revenue Department Sub-Division Pandaciya District Ka»ardha HP 4. Tehsildar, Tehsil Pandariya Dlstrict Kawardha MP BtIT PETITIOH UmMSR MITICLES 226/227 OF THE COHSTITUTIQH OF IHDIA a• HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASPUR Bench: Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrjyastava. J. WRET PETITiON N0.4560/2000 Vishwanath Sin.gh Porte versus 'S The State of Madhya Pradesh ('now C.G.) gnrj othSFS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTiCLE 226(227 OF THE CONSITUTiON OF iNDIA Present: - Shri LoKesh Singh, counsei for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Government Advocate for the State/resporidents No.1, 3 and 4. snn Awaan i npatni. counsei ror responaent N0.2. OKAL ORUtR ' IPassed on 18"' of Aprii. 2011} i nis peccon 's airectea against tne revenue recovery proceeaings arawn against ttie petiuoner in tne maner OT ioan, aavancea to tne petitioner ana rts societv w me resDonaent NO:Z. 'z. bneT racts or ine case necessary ror disposal or tiie petition are inat tne petitioner 'vvho is enaaaed in cuitivation. aiona with othe.r cuitivators. souaht to taKe tne Denefrt OT integratea Kura! ueveiODment Proaramme. SDonsored by tne Government and formed a societv reaistered with District Rurai DeveioDment Authority, Bitaspur on 31/7/97, in the name and styie "Krishi Vikas Samiti, ruiun.muna. i ne' pemioner appiiea ror grant of loan to tne respondent / banK, which was sanctloned to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/-. It is the case ofthe petitioner that due to faiiure of agriculturai operation and mechanicai defects in the Tractor, wnicn was purcnasea tnrougn ioan, tne loan couia not oe repaia, accoraing to tne terrns ana conaruons ror grant or loan, wnicn lea to issuance or snow cause nonce asted B/n/ay &yme tiub-Divisional Officer, Pandaria. Thereafter, revenue 1 13^ recovery proceedings nave oeen initiatea against tne petitioner ana tne i ractor nas a!so oeen attacned. 3. Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the rnemoers ot its socsetv were &enericiaries of tne Government scheme ancf because offaiiure of agriculturai operation forvarious reasons, inciudins shortfaii of rain, loan couid .not be repaid. He submitted that in the cireumstances. the i'esoonaent autnonp/ was unaer an oDiigation to consiaer the Dliant ot tne petitioner, 'who was the beneficiarv of the State sponsored scheme. beina a person livina Deiow povertv line. Me rurtner suomits mat Droper oDDortunltv or hearina was not afforded to the petitioner before effectin.g attachment of the ! ractor, wnicn was purcnasea unaer tne !oan gramea to nim. Learnea counsei ror tne petitioner suDmittea mat even me petitioner had orrered an amount or Rs.25,000/- butthe same has not been considered and the respondent-authority nas proceeaec! to maKe recovery agamst the petrtioner, wnich is iliegal and tnererore, tne aemand nocce as v/eil as the revenue recovery proceeaings Oe auashsa. 4. un tne otner nand, learned State counsel su&mits that the petitioner was beneflciaiv of Intearated Rurai DeveioDment Proaramme and under that Staie sponsored scheme, loan was advanced to the Detitioner. He further submits that in tne present case, as tne loan oDtainea Dy tne pennoner unaer sucn scneme, were not reDaid, upon receipt of certificate from resDondent / bank /comDanv. proceeaings unaer Section .5 (2) OT the unnamsaarn Lokdhan (yhodhva Rashiyonkl Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1997 (for short "The Act of 1997") were initiated against the oetitioner. He further submits that In consistent wit'n the Drovlsions of i, the Act, the Sub-Divisionai Officer gave a show cause notice to the petitioner as "i!l B^:. "" ^'"^" 1°^) s:-,.«isai contempiatea unaer yection i4b ot tne Lana Kevenue uoae, appiicaDle in tiie rnstter of recovero of revenue, in accordance with the provisions contained in Seca'Qn 3 (2) orthe Act of 1997. h'e submifs that under the provisions oftheAct of 1997, the Sub-Divsional Orricer js authorised to effect recover/ In the manner prescn&ed rnerein, whicn inciuaes me power to attacn ana sell me property for reallsation of ioan advanced to the petltioner. Learned counsei for ihe bank argued that the petitioner had obtained loan of .i-<s.3,b"0,uoo/- ana he was liabte to repay the loan in instanments But ne aia not ao so. whicn was inrormea to tne suD-urvisiona! onicer. wnereuDon tne proceeaings unaer section 3 (2) of the ACE ot iy8/ were inrtiatea. ..--•SS9 i.^aeWt' 6. The submission of iearned counsel for the petitioner that before initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, no opportunity was granted, is not correct. The demand notice dated 5/11/99 (Annexure P/6) piaced on record by the petitioner itseif shovre that the notice was given to the petitioner. in view of the provisions contained In Section 3 (2) of the Act or 1997, the Collector or his subordinate officers, on receiving certincate, is empowered to take steps to recover amount stated therein as arrears of land revenue uncter the Chhattisaarh •Land Revenue Cod@, 1S59. Therefore, in ihe matter or recoven/. the provisions contalned in ChaDter Xi in the Land Revenue Code are apDlicable. Secnon 146 thereof requires a notice of demand to be served on any defaulter before issue of anv process under Section 147 for a recoverv of an arrear. The notice dated 5/11/99 ("Annexure P/6) is a notice of demand In terms of Section 146. 'herefore. the notice as reauired under the iaw, v>?as aiven to the oetitioner. fc ^ 7. So tar as proceeain.gs of anachment of the Tractor are concerned, yecuon 147 of the Land Revenue Code authorises the recoveFi? officer to take recourse to such coercive steps of afiachment and saie of movable Dropertv. The other submission of iearned counsel for the Detitioner that resDondeni authoritv and the bank ousnt to have appreciateQ the ract tnat the peiitioner is a Door agncuitur'st Hvlng &eiow poverty line ana to consiaer nis case in a sympatnetic manner, is an aspect, wnicn may be considerea oy tne responcients Dut on tnat grouna, tnis Court cannot interfere wrth the recovery' proceedings Vi'hich have been initiated under the provisions of the Act of 1897, in the aosence of there Deing any illegaiiry Drought to tne notice or tnss uoun. '.^.^•e J-"^ ••-." •^•.'--;T^;^'_^^ 8. in the result, i arn not inclined to grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner in this Detition. The Detition has to be dismissed and is accordinaiv dismissed. 9. Learned counse! ror the Detrtioner submits tnat tne resoonaents may oe airectea to consiaer tne case or tne petitioner towaras seniement OT 'oan on aDDropnate reiaxea terms. 10. It is a maitsr between the petitioner and the respondents. it is made clear that the order Dassed bv thls Court shail not come in the wav of consideration OT tne case or tne pentioner, in sucn a manner as may De consiaered just ana Drooer, in tne tacts ana circumstances or tne case. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge