Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Kavita Malviya vs Tahsildar (Nazul) on 23 July, 2015
1
W.P. No.4518/2012
23.07.2015
Shri Wajid Hyder learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri S. K. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Atul Choudhary learned counsel for respondent no.2.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
The petitioner has filed this petition assailing the proceedings for recovery initiated by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam 1988.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court by interim order dated 4.4.2012 has stayed the recovery proceedings. It is also stated that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Ahilya Bai vs. State of M.P. And others, (W.A No.371/2012) and Santosh vs. Central Bank of India, Indore and others, 2003 (2) MPLJ 246, has already held that where the amount to be recovered is above Rs.10 lakhs, revenue recovery proceedings under the provisions of the Act of 1988, cannot be initiated and the prescribed remedy of the authorities is to initiate proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1993). It is also stated by the learned counsel 2 W.P. No.4518/2012 for the petitioner that subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court, the respondent Bank has also initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing O.A No.233/2012 which is pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 does not dispute the law laid down by this Court in the decisions above quoted above nor has any decision to the contrary been pointed out by him.
In the circumstances and looking to the fact that the respondent authorities have already initiated proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the present petition is allowed. The recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities under the Act of 1988 is hereby quashed.
It is, however, made clear that the decision in the writ petition would not have any impact or effect on the power of the respondent no.2 to recover the loan through the Debt Recovery Tribunal nor would have any impact upon the proceedings pending before it.
In view of the aforesaid, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C.C as per rules.
( R. S. JHA ) JUDGE mms/-