MD. TASLIMUDDIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.01.2014 passed by the Respondent No. 6 in Certificate Case No. 11/2010-11, whereby the Respondent No. 6 has been pleased to reject the petition filed by the petitioner challenging the maintainability of certificate case on the ground that it was barred by law of limitation; and for quashing the proceedings of the said Certificate Case No. 11/2010-11 pending in the court of the Respondent No. 6 for which a requisition was filed by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 3(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Bungalow No. 2, Motilal Nehru Place, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner when he was elected as a Member of Parliament. In due course, upon the dissolution of the 12th Lok Sabha on 26.04.1999, the allotment of the said Bungalow in the petitioner 's name was cancelled with effect from 26.05.1999. It is stated that the petitioner subsequently received two notices, both dated 07.02.2011, issued by the respondent no. 6 under Sec. 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act (for short, 'the Act ') in connection with Certificate Cases Nos. 11 and 12 of 2010-11 for Rs. 10,26,919.00 and Rs. 10,20,303.00 respectively.

(3.) The petitioner had earlier moved this Court in CWJC No. 4910 of 2012 against the certificate proceeding, raising the plea of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of on 16.02.2012, treating the aforesaid letter dated 07.02.2012 issued by the certificate officer as notice issued to the petitioner of the certificate proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to appear and file an objection petition under Section 9 of the Act before the Certificate officer to be disposed of in accordance with law. On such objection petition being subsequently filed by the petitioner, the contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Certificate Officer in terms of the order dated 20.01.2014 impugned herein. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has once again sought to question the validity of the proceedings in certificate Case No. 11 of 2010-11 on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.