MAHADEO RAOJI Vs. ANANT GANESH BHAGWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that falls to be considered by this Full Bench is a very short one and refers to the construction of Section 13 (3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of Indebtedness Act (24 of 1939 ). Under Section 13 (1) of that Act, if an instalment which has been fixed by the Debt Relief Court is not paid on the duo date, the creditor is given the power to apply within eighteen months from the date of the default to the Deputy Commissioner or such other officer as may be appointed in that behalf by the Provincial Government for the recovery of that instalment as an anear of land revenue, and the Deputy Commissioner or such other revenue officer has been given the power to recover such instalment as an arrear of land revenue. Under Sub-section (2), if the instalment or part thereof is irrecoverable, the Deputy Commissioner or other revenue officer has to certify the irrecoverability, and under Sub-section (3) if an instalment or part thereof is certified as irrecoverable under Sub-section (2) or if two consecutive instalments remain in arrears, the Deputy Commissioner, on the application of the creditor, shall pass an order that the order of the Debt Relief Court fixing the instalments shall case to have effect, and the balance remaining clue shall be recoverable as if a decree has been passed by a Court of Civil jurisdiction.

(2.) NOW, in the case before us, the respondents, who arc the creditors, applied to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 13 (3) alleging that the appellant, the debtor, had failed to pay two consecutive instalments on their respective due dates, and the Deputy Commissioner being satisfied that two consecutive instalments had remained, in arrears passed an order contemplated by Section 13 (3 ). Thereupon the creditors went to the Civil Court for execution of that order as a decree, and the Civil Court having ordered execution, the appellant came in appeal to this Court, and the appellant's contention was that the order passed under Section 13 (3) was not by the Deputy Commissioner but by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and therefore the order was without jurisdiction and could not be executed by the Civil Court.

(3.) NOW, the very short answer to the debtor's contention is the amendment effected in the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, by Act VIII of 1945. Chapter II of this Act deals with revenue officers, their class, and powers, and before the amendment Section 9 dealt with a Deputy Commissioner and it provided that the State Government shall appoint in each district a Deputy Commissioner who shall exercise therein the powers and discharge the duties conferred and imposed on a Deputy Commissioner or Collector by this Act or by any enactment for the time being in force. Then by this Amending Act VIII of 1945 Section 9-A was incorporated and it gave the State Government the power to appoint an Additional Deputy Commissioner, and Sub-section (3) of this section provided that an Additional Deputy Commissioner shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties conferred and imposed on a Deputy Commissioner or a Collector by this Act or by any enactment for the time being in force, or by any rule made under this Act or any such other enactment in such cases or class of eases as the Deputy Commissioner of the district may direct and Sub-section " (4) provides: