Mukti Dutta vs Collector/District Magistrate Almora ... on 18 December, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Uttarakhand High Court

Mukti Dutta vs Collector/District Magistrate Almora ... on 18 December, 2020

(Via Video Conferencing) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, challenging the notice dated 16th November, 2019, and the consequential recovery citation dated 12th December, 2019, whereby the petitioner was made liable to remit the loan amount of Rs. 96,45,423/-, which was held to be outstanding and due to be payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.2, who has referred the recovery of the amount to be made through Collector, as arrears of land revenue, under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act.

2. In the process of undertaking the recovery of the amount, the property, which was mortgaged as against the loan taken by the petitioner was that as detailed in the notice, constituting to be the property lying in Khata Khatuni No. 128 of having an area of 0.005 hectares lying in the revenue kshetra Bhasori, Gram Binsar and Khata Khatuni No. 1, having an area of 0.358 hectares, a shreni-1 land. The details of which were more particularly given in the attachment order of the Assistant Collector dated 10.06.2020.

3. It was contended that the aforesaid land falls to be under the provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is made applicable on it. But, however, in the process of the recovery of the amount due to be paid to the respondent bank, the recovery citation was issued under Section 284/285 of the said Act, and the property as aforesaid was attached by the orders of the Assistant Collector, vide his order dated 10th June, 2020, and the ZA Form No. 73, under Rule 273 of the Z.A. Rules, was issued while attaching the aforesaid assets of the petitioner in lieu of the recovery of the amount due to be paid.

4. Subsequently, when this Writ Petition was taken up on different dates, gradually, number of proposals, counter proposals were extended by the counsel for the parties to the Writ Petition, and ultimately, the controversy boiled down, when an expression was given by the petitioner that she may be permitted to sell the property, thus attached by the Assistant Collector, in the recovery proceedings and whatsoever the sale proceeds would be accruing from it, she would be remitting against the loan amount sought to be recovered by the impugned notices and the recovery citation and further an effort was directed to be made for undertaking a one time settlement, with the respondent No.2.

5. Accordingly, this Court passed an order on 4th November, 2020, for the direction to complete the instructions with regard to the consideration of the onetime settlement to be made by the Board of Director of respondent No.2.

6. Later on, the Writ Petition was taken up once again on 18th November, 2020, whereby, the learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that she is willing to discharge her responsibility by way of one time settlement or in an alternative, she may be granted liberty to sell the property, which was thus attached by the S.D.M. and she also undertook through her counsel Mr. Siddhartha Singh, that whatsoever the sale proceeds would be 3 accruing from the sale, which she would be getting, she would be depositing it as against the loan amount which is outstanding against her.

7. Subsequent thereto, the matter was taken up once again on 2nd December, 2020, whereby, the petitioner had expressed his inability to dispose of the property, for the reason being that the property already stood attached by the Assistant Collector as a consequence of the issuance of the recovery citation which was under

challenge in the present Writ Petition. Hence, in order to carve out a means to settle down the controversy, this Court directed the State Government to complete the instructions, to the effect that as to whether the State Agency, is willing to momentarily release the property, thus attached in order to enable the petitioner to sell the property on her own and to deposit the amount of sale proceeds as against the outstanding amount payable to the respondent No.2.

8. In compliance thereto, the Standing Counsel, has placed before this Court, the attachment order, as well as correspondence made to the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, from the office of District Magistrate, Almora, dated 08.12.2020, wherein, the said correspondence which was made by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Almora, in principle, has agreed that for the purposes of facilitating, the one-time settlement process, the District Magistrate, in principle, has agreed to release the property in order to enable the petitioner to sell the property attached, on her own but that was subject to the rider attached to the permission; that the petitioner would be liable to remit the recovery charges @ 10% to the District Magistrate. The relevant part of the communication made by the District Magistrate vide his letter No. 1236 dated 8th December, 2020, is quoted hereunder :-

"eq[; LFkkbZ vf/koDrk] ek0 mPp U;k;ky;] mRrjk[k.M uSuhrky ds i= la0 6116] fnukad 29-10-2020 rFkk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns"k fn0 18-11- 2020 ls ;g laKku esa vk;k gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk fnuakd 16-10-2020 dks foi{kh la0&02 dks One Time Settlement gsrq izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj 4 fn;k x;k gS] ftl ij ;kfpdkdrkZ rFkk foi{kh la0 2 }kjk vkilh lgefr ls fu.kZ; fy;k tkuk gSA ;fn foi{kh la0&02 ¼mRrjk[k.M cgqmnns"kh; for ,oa fodkl fuxe fy0 nsgjknwu½ }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds One Time Settlement ds izLrko dks Lohdkj dj ek0 U;k;ky; ds le{k One Time Settlement dh lgefr dk izLrko izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS vkSj jsLiksUMsUV ua0 01 ls lUnfHkZr olwyh i= okil fd;s tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k tkrk gS rks ;kfpdkdrkZ dks fu;ekuqlkj 10 izfr"kr ifjO;; "kqYd tek fd;s tkus ds mijkUr olwyh i= @lEifRr lEcfU/kr foHkkx ¼mRrjk[k.M cgqmnns"kh; for ,oa fodkl fuxe fy0 nsgjknwu½ dks okil fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj djok yh tk;sxhA"

9. Matter was taken up today. In view of the aforesaid consent which had been extended by the District Magistrate, subject to the conditions imposed therein, coupled with on considering the attachment order which was also produced before this Court, this Court passes the following directions on the consensus, which has been given by the petitioner, Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the respondent No.2 and the State Counsel. The conditions thus imposed are as under :-

1. The property, which has been attached by the order of S.D.M. dated 10th June, 2020, would be temporarily released only for the purposes to enable the petitioner, to sell the property and to get an appropriate adequate sale consideration exclusively in order to enable her to meet up her loan liability.

2. The exercise of sale, which has been thus permitted in pursuance to this order, would be notified in the office of Sub Registrar, in order to let the general public know, the conditions under which the sale deed is being permitted to be executed.

3. The exercise of entries into the sale with the private person as a consequence of the release permitted by the District Magistrate by an order of 8th December, 2020, as well as by this Court by today's order, would be ensured to be carried by the petitioner, positively within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. On 5 expiry of the above period, the permission granted, would lapse and property would once again be deemed to be attached.

4. The sale transaction, if any, which is entered into by the petitioner would be made in the presence of the representative of the respondent No.2 as well as, of the Office of the Collectorate, who would be authorised by the District Magistrate, to participate at the time when the deed of conveyance is executed by the petitioner with the private person.

5. The sale deed thus executed would also reflect the effect of pendency of this Writ Petition, as one of the convonents of the sale deeds.

6. As soon as the sale transaction is completed, the petitioner would ensure to remit the amount due to be paid to the respondent No.2, towards the recovery proceedings, which is the subject matter of the Writ and subsequently, if there happens to be any outstanding balance, this Court will pass an appropriate orders depending upon the circumstances prevailing thereafter.

7. The petitioner, hereby also undertakes that as a consequence of the permission of the sale granted to her, she is willing to comply the conditions of depositing the recovery charges as indented to be levied by the District Magistrate vide his communication dated 8th December, 2020.

10. Put up this Writ Petition for further orders immediately after one month, .e. 15th January, 2021.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 18.12.2020 Shiv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court