1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6106 OF 2008 ... M/s.Multicolour Projects (India) Ltd. And ors. ...Petitioners v/s. The District Collector, Thane and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.V.R.Dhond with Mr.Alok Gupta for the Petitioners. Mrs.M.P.Thakur, AGP for Respondents Nos.1,2,4 & 5. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED:3 rd December, 2009 P.C.: Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 2. The Petitioner by this petition makes a grievance against the demand notice issued against the Petitioner by the Tahasildar, Palghar. It is an admitted position that the demand notice has been issued against the Petitioner for recovery of the amounts, which according to the Respondents Nos.1 & 2 ,were due to the Government from Basant Tubes Ltd. It is also common ground that because amounts were recoverable by financial institution from Basant Tubes Ltd., proceedings before the D.R.T. were taken, where the property was sold and the Petitioner purchased the immoveable property in execution of the decree passed by the D.R.T. From the material produced on record, it does not appear that any charge was created for the demand of the State Government for which recovery certificate has been issued on the property of Basant Tubes Ltd. In our opinion, 3 therefore, as there does not appear to be any charge on the property, the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 may not be entitled to claim the amount from the Petitioner. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated before us that amounts in excess of Rs.3.6 crores are lying with the D.R.T., which are the sale proceeds of the property of Basant Tubes against whom the Respondents have raised the demands. 3. In our opinion, therefore, the appropriate Forum for the Respondents would be to approach the D.R.T or the Recovery Officer with whom the amounts are lying, for recovering the amounts due to the Respondents from Basant Tubes Ltd. and not the attachment of the property in the hands of the Petitioner. 4 4. In the result, therefore, petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)