MANGTU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated against the father of the present petitioners by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh in terms of Sec. 13 (1) of Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1974').

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery proceedings are totally illegal as no notice in terms of Sec. 13(1) of the Act of 1974 was ever served on the petitioners prior to the initiation of the said recovery proceedings. Counsel submits that the notice of the recovery proceedings was allegedly served on the grandson of the borrower i.e. Karnail Singh. Order sheet dtd. 13/7/2013 reflects that the borrower presented himself before the Tehsildar and prayed for time to deposit the remaining due amount whereas the borrower Karnail Singh had already expired on 29/3/2006. Order sheet dtd. 16/7/2013 is therefore factually incorrect.

(3.) While relying upon the Division Bench of this Court in Chet Ram and Anr. Vs. State of Rajastha and Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3874 of 2004 (decided on 22/9/2004) counsel submitted that the Prescribed Authority is first required to make a determination of the liability/dues and after the said determination, is required to call upon the borrower to pay the amount due. It is only after the said amount as called upon, not been paid within a period of three months, that the recovery/ execution proceedings can be undertaken. Herein, without any determination of liability, straightaway the recovery proceedings have been undertaken and that too against a dead person.