IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4347 of 2006 MUNNA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 5. 1.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State Bank of India. The petitioner has come to this Court against the order dated 10.3.2003 passed in Certificate Appeal No. 10 of 2000 by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram and also the order dated 6.10.2005 passed in Certificate Case No. 7/95-96. The facts relevant in the present matter are that the father of the petitioner late Baleshwar Prasad had taken a loan of Rs. 53219.87 in the year 1986 from the State Bank of India on mortgaging the land of Khata No. 23, Plot No. 2041, Area 0.06 decimal. However, for recovery of the dues against the said amount Certificate Case No. 7/95-96 for Rs. 119493.27 was initiated against the said Baleshwar Prasad during the pendency of which he died. The petitioner’s name was substituted in place of his father as his sole heir and legal representative and notice was issued to him. Thereafter, the petitioner denied his liability claiming that he has not inherited any asset from his father either movable or immovable and he could not be proceeded against. By order dated 1.8.2000, the Certificate Officer accepted the objection of the petitioner and dropped the certificate case against him. Against the same the State Bank of India preferred Appeal No. 10/2000 and by order dated 10.3.2003 the Collector, Rohtas remanded the matter directing that the - 2 - Court below ought to obtain the details of the property of late Baleshwar Prasad and thereafter pass final orders in the matter. The petitioner thereafter again appeared before the Certificate Officer. It is claimed by learned counsel for the petitioner that proclamation of sale ( Annexure- 4 ) was issued on 10.11.2004 for holding a sale of the mortgaged property on 30.11.2004. It is further claimed that the mortgaged land was sold by Baleshwar Prasad to one Vijay Sah who filed an application to the Bank and thereafter an amicable settlement was made and after final compromise between the bank and said Vijay Sah the proceeding was dropped. In this regard the petitioner has also filed an application before the Certificate Officer, details of which, has been recorded in the order dated 30.11.2004. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank, it is claimed by the Bank that the petition of Vijay Sah was rejected by the Certificate Officer by order dated 6.10.2005. The bank claimed that the dues as per calculation made by the bank till July, 2006 comes to Rs. 82,209.25/-. The Bank has also denied that it had entered into any compromise with Vijay Sah. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Bank that the order dated 10.3.2003 has already been accepted by the petitioner by appearing before the Certificate Officer and it is not open to him to challenge the same at this belated stage. It is further stated that there is no illegality in the order dated 6.10.2005 passed by the Certificate Officer since the Certificate Officer has clearly mentioned that he being the inheritor of the assets of his father, is liable for the certificate debt.. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the heir of a deceased debtor is liable to the - 3 - extent of the property inherited by him. For the said reasons it is submitted by learned counsel that the proceedings ought to continue until the liability of late Baleshwar Prasad are realized by the Bank in the Certificate proceeding from the assets left behind by him. On a consideration of the rival submissions, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the challenge to the order dated 10.3.2003 of the Collector is concerned, the same is belated since the petitioner has appeared before the Certificate Officer on various dates thereafter. This Court also does not find any illegality in the order dated 6.10.2005 of the Certificate Officer by which he has rightly held that the asset of late Baleshwar Prasad if inherited by the petitioner can be realized from him. However, this Court is concerned about the fact that the proceeding has dragged on without reaching any logical conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that after issuing a proclamation of sale (Annexure -4) dated 10.11.2004, the Certificate Officer has not proceeded with respect to the same and made no attempt to recover the dues of the deceased Baleshwar Prasad from the mortgaged property left behind by him. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ application is dismissed. However, the Certificate Officer is directed to proceed expeditiously in the matter but only against the assets of late Baleshwar Prasad which has been left behind by him and in particular the mortgaged property for which he has issued a proclamation of sale. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.) - 4 -