(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came up for hearing in the first instance on 18th of September, 1964, in absence of any State counsel and in view of the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner I adjourned the proceedings to obtain representation on behalf of the State I have heard today both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are not in dispute and may briefly be narrated. Mohinder Singh petitioner a resident of village Khanal Khurd was granted a loan of Rs. 5,000/- on the 18th of July, 1960. The loan was taken by the petitioners ostensibly for improvement of his land by installing a tube-well. According to the agreement the loan was to be repaid in 20 equal six monthly installments. No installment has so far so been paid. As stated by the petitioner himself before the Naib Tehsildar (Recovery) the loan was never utilised for the purpose for which it was taken. The Collector Sangrur proceeded with the recovery of the amount in pursuance of the following terms of the agreement.
(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Basins the counsel for the petitioner the amount can never be recovered under this Act in a lump sum and the payment can be enforced even in case of default only by installments. The recovery which is the subject-matter of section 7 is not fettered by the condition which applies to "repayment. " Under subsection (1) of section 7 of the Act all loans under the recoverable by the Collector amongst other modes as arrears of land revenue. There is a clear line of distinction between "repayment" mentioned in sub-section " (1) of section 6 and the term "recoverable" employed in sub-section (1) of section 7. When a borrower is making repayment within the stipulated time or the period of grace. he may do so in installments and when he fails to do so the balance of the loan becomes due and the element of imposition or enforcement is implied in the amount becoming recoverable.