LAWS(ALL)-1999-4-188

BANK OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA SINGH

Decided On April 17, 1999
BANK OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
DEVENDRA SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.8.1996 by which the learned single Judge was disposed of the writ petition attended with the following clarification : "It is thus clarified that neither the petitioners shall be arrested nor their immovable property including the Tractor will be auctioned. Straightway, the sum outstanding against the petitioners will be recovered by attachment and sale of immovable property recorded in their names in the khatauni situated in village Manpur. Rampur, Hadha, Naipura district Barabanki."

(2.) The petitioner had taken certain loan from the appellant Bank which was repayable in certain instalments. It appears that the petitioners defaulted in making payment of instalments as a result of which the proceeding for recovery was initiated. Thereafter, the writ petition giving rise to this Special Appeal, was filed for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Recovery Authorities to recover the dues outstanding against the petitioner-respondent from the immoveable property which according to them, 'was mortgaged in favour of the appellant. It was the case of the petitioners that the sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered by process under Section 286 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act from any immovable property of the defaulter including any holding of which the defaulters are Bhumidhars or Asami and not from any movable property. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted and in our opinion rightly that Section 286 (2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act will not in any manner, affect the generality of the procedure for recovery of arrears of land revenue as specified in Section 279 of the U. P. Act 1 of 1951. The point raised herein is covered by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Chhote Lal v. State Electricity Board. 1986 ALJ 404, in which it was held as under :

(3.) Following the said decision we are inclined to allow this appeal.