RAM JEET Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra Court appeal under the Rules of the Court arises from the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 2.1.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 75771 of 2011 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the impugned recovery certificate issued in the year 2010, a copy whereof is Annexure-7 to the writ petition, is dismissed. It appears that the appellant-Ram Jeet, his father Ram Dawar Yadav and other family members took loan on 27.3.1997 from the respondent-Union Bank of India for purchase of a Tractor. However, when the appellant committed default in payment of installments, the Bank initiated recovery proceeding and consequently a recovery certificate was issued in the year 2001. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order under appeal. Hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the installments have been paid by the appellant and the amount shown in the recovery certificate is inflated and the payment made by the appellant has not been adjusted. He also submitted that against the impugned recovery notice, the appellant filed a detailed objection before the Recovery Officer/Tehsildar, respondent No. 3. However, the Recovery Officer without disposing of the objection, adopted coercive steps for recovery of the amount. He further submits that several installments were deposited but those deposits have not been entered in his Passbook, nor it has been taken into consideration while issuing the recovery certificate.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant further relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Seth Banarsi Dass (Dead) by LRS. v. District Magistrate and Collector, Meerut and others, 1996 2 SCC 689, urged that the Recovery Officer acts as an Executing Court, and therefore, the objection filed against such recovery was bound to be decided before proceeding for recovery.