LALIT PARSHAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts which have given rise to this application in revision may briefly be stated as below: -

(2.) BY an order of the Government dated 22.11.51 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was advanced on account of Taqavi loan to the applicant for the purchase of a tractor and other agricultural machineries and implements etc. on furnishing adequate security for re-payment of the said loan by half-yearly instalment of Rs. 625/- each on the first date of the month. An agreement to this effect was also executed by the applicant. The said instalments having fallen into arrears, the Collector gave a notice to the applicant to deposite the money or in default show cause why it be not recovered by attachment of the tractor etc. The applicant made certain representations which on a plain reading show how he desired to evade the payment of the government dues on one ground or the other. Eventually the learned (Collector ordered that the tractor and the ploughs etc. be attached and auctioned. The only objection made by the applicant was that without giving due publicity the said property should not be put to auction and along with the tractor etc., the trolly should also have been so attached and auctioned. This was over-ruled by the learned Collector by an order dated 8th July, '58 as he thought that due publicity had been given and that the trolly which had already been attached by an order of a civil court, could not be put to auction by him. Against this order, the applicant went in appeal to the learned Commissioner. The only point argued before the said learned court was that proper proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act were not taken and therefore the property should be released from attachment. The learned Commissioner thought that as those proceedings were not taken under the Public Demands Recovery Act, an appeal was not competent to him under the relevant provisions of Public Demands Recovery Act and on this ground the appeal was dismissed. In revision, on being questioned whether the same was filed under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act or under any law known to the applicant, the learned counsel failed to say anything in this behalf. We looked into these proceedings ourselves and find that, in fact, these proceedings were in essence Initiated under the Rajasthan Agricultural Loans Act 1956 (Rajasthan Act 1 of 1957). Sec. 7 of this Act empowers the Collector to order the recovery of such loans as if they were arrears of Land Revenue. The various processes for recovery of such arrears are given in section 228 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. An order given by a Collector therefore in such matters was appealable to the learned Commissioner. Nevertheless as the case has come up before us, we find that the instalments which fell due against the applicant, could be recovered as arrears of. land revenue. The learned Collector at first served a writ of demand and a citation to appear on the defaulter and thereafter on his failure to deposit the dues or otherwise giving a satisfactory explanation ordered the attachment and sale of the movable property. He had full authority and jurisdiction to do so. The learned counsel for the appellant completely failed to show how in such circumstances an order given by the Collector could be interfered with by us in the exercise of our revisional powers.