SADHNA CHOURASIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal preferred under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises out of order dated 4-10-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27997/2003.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of the instant appeal, briefly stated, are that the respondent No. 1 sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lacs to the appellant for purchase of Tractor & Trolley. The appellant mortgaged the land admeasuring 5.70 hectares situate at Village Badikheri, District Mandla with the respondent No. 1 by way of security for loan. The appellant committed default in repayment of the amount of loan as a result of which proceedings were initiated for recovery by the respondent No. 1-Bank. Consequently, Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) was issued on 17-12-1996 under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1987 Act') for recovery of amount of Rs. 3,19,289/- together with interest. Aggrieved appellant filed an objection to RRC on the ground that proceedings in question since have been initiated beyond the period of limitation as loan was taken by the appellant on 27-3-1992 and RRC was issued on 27-12-1996 hence the same being time barred could not be initiated. The objection preferred by the appellant was rejected by Naib Tehsildar and warrant of attachment of the property was issued. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing a revision before the Collector. The Collector vide order dated 30-1-2001 allowed the revision preferred by the appellant and remitted the matter to the Tehsildar to decide the objection afresh. In compliance of the order of remand passed by Collector, the Tehsildar once again decided the objection preferred by the appellant and rejected the same vide order dated 8-3-2001.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 44 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') before the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 30-5-2001 rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant on the ground that the same is not maintainable. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer was challenged by the appellant in an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 24-8-2001 affirmed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer.