KISHANLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition which is basically under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order passed by Tahsildar, Tahsil Indore on 4.10.2002 by which without considering the objection of the petitioner directed for issuance of warrant of attachment. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in reply of the demand notice, the petitioner filed objections before the Additional Tahsildar on 19.1.200 land thereafter filed its reply but the Tahsildar has not decided the objections and without considering the objections passed an order of issuance of warrant of attachment. Admittedly the Tahsildar is recovering the amount at the request of the bank under the M.P. Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam of 1987'). As per sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Adhiniyam of 1987, the Collector or a subordinate officer specified under sub-section (1) on receiving the certificate shall take steps to recover the amount stated therein as arrears of land revenue under the MPLR Code, 1959. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that a presumption under section 145 of the MPLR Code is a rebuttal presumption and she placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bhag Singh v. State of M.P. (1972 MPLJ SN 139), in which it has been held that no doubt the presumption under section 145 is a rebuttal presumption and for rebutting such a presumption if any objections are filed the Tahsildar or the concerned authority is duty-bound to decide the objections and if any objections are also filed about the correctness of the amount, the concerned authority is also duty-bound to decide and arrive at a conclusion as to what is the correct amount recoverable from the petitioner and the concerned authority cannot execute the certificate blindly. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the Tahsildar is bound to decide the objections which are filed even about the correct statement of arrears payable to the Government or to any other authority.

(2.) IN this case admittedly the Additional Tahsildar has not decided the objections and has directed to issue warrant of attachment. Therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. It cannot be allowed to stand. Thus, this petition is allowed. The impugned order issuing warrant of attachment is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the concerned Tahsildar to decide the objections after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter by a reasoned order to decide the objections. Shri Kale submitted that under section 150 such an objection can only be decided by the SDO then in that case the Tahsildar may place the record before the SDO for deciding the objections as laid down under sub-section (2) of section 150 and if such objections are decided thereafter only to proceed with the recovery proceedings. Thus, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs.