RECOVERY OFFICER LAKHIMPUR Vs. RAVINDRA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals the Recovery Officer functioning under the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and others have brought in challenge the judgment and order of the High court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench in different writ petitions moved by the contesting respondents. The High court allowed the writ petitions of the contesting respondents concerned and quashed the recovery proceedings initiated against them insofar as they related to the execution order under Section 91 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by attachment and sale of the lands of the contesting respondents. It is not in dispute between the parties that the original writ petitioners being members of the cooperative societies concerned had taken loans for seeds and manure etc. from these societies functioning under the Act. When the contesting respondents did not repay the loans, the cooperative societies which advanced the loans sought to enforce the statutory charge on the properties of the writ petitioners as created by Section 39 (a) of the Act. Recovery proceedings for enforcing the said charge were initiated under Section 91 read with Section 39 (a) by the appellant-Recovery Officer. The contesting respondent-writ petitioners moved the High court challenging these recoveries. It was contended before the High court by the contesting writ petitioner-loanees that as the loans were taken for procuring seeds and manure etc. charge under Section 39 (a) attached to the crops produced in the lands of the contesting respondents by utilising seeds and manure procured out of the loan amounts but the said charge did not fasten on to the other properties and lands of the writ petitioners and therefore, proceedings under Section 91 against the lands of the writ petitioners were illegal and liable to be quashed. The High court accepted the said contention and allowed the writ petitions by holding, on construction of Section 39 read with Section 91of the Act that for realisation of loans advanced for the objects mentioned in Section 39 (a) of the Act, sale of the lands belonging to the writ petitioners could not be effected unless the societies concerned obtained decrees of a court of competent jurisdiction as required by the proviso to Section 39. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed.

(2.) The aforesaid decision of the High court is challenged by the appellant on the ground that the High court had erred in not properly construing the provision in Section 39 (a) read with Section 91 of the Act. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to have a look at the relevant provision. Section 39 reads as under:

(3.) For all these reasons, therefore, it must be held that the High court was justified in quashing the steps taken by the appellants for sale of the lands belonging to the respondents. We make it clear that our aforesaid conclusion is reached in the context of the loans advanced under Section 39 (a) of the Act. It would be open to the appellants to pursue other remedies available for realisation of the loan amounts advanced to the respondents- writ petitioners in accordance with law. These appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs.