CWP No. 15579 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15579 of 1990 Date of decision May 16,2011 Surinder Mohan Bhanot ....Appellant Versus Assistant Collector., UT., Chandigarh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: None for the petitioner. Mr,.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel , Chandigarh Administratiion and Mr. A. P. Setia, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.K. S. Malik , Advocate for respondent No.2. None for respondent Nos. 3,4 and 5. K. Kannan, J (oral) 1. The petitioner seeks for quashing of the order issued by the Assistant Collector to the Managing Director, Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation to effect deduction of 1/3rd salary of the official and send the same to the Assistant Collector. This was in purported execution of an award passed by MACT., against the employee of the Corporation. 2. The grounds raised in the writ petition are that the attachment is in violation of Section 60 CPC. A recovery which is made in terms of the provisions of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for following procedure. “ Recovery of money from insurer as arrear of land revenue: Where any amount is due from any person under CWP No. 15579 of 1990 2 an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.” 3. The Collector that makes a recovery invokes the power under the Land Revenue Act and the recoveries are possible in terms of Section 67 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act of 1887. 4. Section 68 provides for a writ of demand and Section 69 contemplates arrest and detention of the defaulter. Section 72 provides for an attachment of estate or holding and an attachment of land if it is made shall not last for a period in excess of 5 years. The appropriate provision for recovery must fall under any of the modes prescribed under Section 67,68 and 69 of the Act. I do not find any scope for recovery of salary otherwise than by such attachment. If the attachment of salary is affected, it is not delimited by any provisions of Section 60 CPC and operates independently of the same. I do not find any error in the order passed by the Collector or for the recoveries made by the employer. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE May 16,2011 archana