SIDDIQUE Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4. In 1995, the petitioner availed of a loan of Rs. 57,000/- from respondents 3 and 4. Recommitted default and even according to respondents 3 and 4 requisition under S. 69(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act was issued for realising dues, only in the year 2007. Pursuant to the said requisition, Exts. P4 and P5 under the Revenue Recovery Act were issued for recovering Rs. 1,84,198/-. It is challenging the recovery proceedings, the Writ Petition is filed.

(2.) Two contentions are raised. The first contention is that the petitioner has already paid the entire amount due and therefore, the recovery proceedings are illegal. This contention of the petitioner is answered in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 and 4, which reads thus:

(3.) In the light of the above averments in the counter affidavit, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner that the entire liability has been discharged.