- (1.)CHALLENGING the revenue recovery certificate Annexure P -6 issued by the Tahsildar, Capital Project T.T. Nagar, Bhopal proposing to recover the sum of Rs. 10,89,715/ - from the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed. A two fold objection is raised to the propose recovery. The first objection is that the provisions of 146 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code cannot be invoked for recovery of the amount in the manner done under the M.P. Land Revenue Code for the establishment of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation. The second objection raised is that without adjudication of the claim for un -liquidated damages, which is proposed to be recovered by the impugned revenue recovery certificate, the entire recovery is unsustainable and in support thereof reliance is placed on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of B.B. Verma v. State of M.P. 2008 [RN 52=2008(1) MPHT 17], Even though Shri Vipin Mishra points out that after the contract of the petitioner was descended he raised certain claims before the competent authority of the Department and the competent authority of the Department having rejected the same the requirement of law as contemplated by the Full Bench in the case of B.B. Verma stand complied with and therefore this petition has no merit.
(2.)WE have considered the rival contentions and we have also considered the law laid down by the High Court in the case of B.B. Verma (supra). It has been held by the High Court in the case of B. B. Verma (supra), that if the dispute between the parties pertains to recovery of claim for un -liquidated damages that without adjudication of the claim with regard to the same resorting to the procedure contemplated under sections 146 and 147 M. P. Land Revenue Code and the recovery of disputed amount by way of RRC is not permissible. In the present case there is no adjudication of the claim for un -liquidated damages being made by the respondent corporation which is proposed to be recovered under the RRC in question. What has been adjudicated and rejected by the competent authority of the respondent is a claim made by the petitioner for damage cause to him due to descending of contract and said dispute is now pending for consideration in a reference made by the petitioner before the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam. As per the claim of the respondent Department for payment of unliquidated damages is concerned, there is no adjudication of this claim. That being so, in the light of the law laid down by High Court in the case of B.B. Verma (supra), this recovery by way of RRC without resorting to the procedure for prior adjudication of the unliquidated damages is not permissible. That being the admitted legal position is available on record, we see no reason to reject the prayer made by the petitioner. Accordingly, on the aforesaid ground this petition is allowed, impugned order and RRC Annexure P -6 issued by Naib Tahsildar is quashed and the liberty is granted to the respondents to take steps for recovery of unliquidated damages in accordance with law. As far as the question of jurisdiction of making recovery under sections 146 and 147 raised in this writ petition are concerned, we did not go into the said question now in the light of the aforesaid finding the said question is left open to be considered, if required at the appropriate stage. RDS