GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER contends that his property is attached for recovery against M/s. Tirupati Sales. Contention of the petitioner is that the seizure and attachment of property for the recovery of M/s. Tirupati Sales belongs to petitioner. Against the said attachment under section 146 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, petitioner has filed an objection presumably under Rule 24 of the Rules and Procedure mentioned in Schedule 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. The objection has been rejected. Counsel for petitioner submitted that before deciding the objection, the Tahsildar-cum-Commercial Tax Officer has not considered the right of the petitioner over the attached property and for the assessment of M/s.Tirupati Sales, the property of petitioner could not be attached.

(2.) SUB -rule 2 of Rule 24 provides that the person against whom an order is made under Sub-rule 1 may within one year from the date of the order, institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property attached or proceeded against but subject to result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. Rule 19 of the Rules provides that when the property to be attached is a movable property other than agricultural produce, in the possession of defaulter the attachment shall be made by actual seizure, and the Attaching Officer shall keep the property in his custody or in the custody of any of his subordinates and shall be responsible for due custody thereof.

(3.) PETITIONER if so advised may avail remedy available under Rule 24 (2) Schedule 1 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. Petition is dismissed as not maintainable as efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. Disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into in the writ petition.