Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegations that a sum of Rs. 5,998/4/- alleged to have been advanced by the Rehabilitation Finance Administration to Janwardas Dalchand was being recovered from the petitioner as a guarantor for the loan although he never stood surety for the same. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2, Tehsildar, Sawai Jaipur, had threatened to attach his property without taking recourse to proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act. On behalf of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration it was stated that the petitioner had not come with clean hands. There was documentary evidence to show that the petitioner had stood as surety for Janwardas Dalchand, that due notices were sent to him from time to time, and that in any case the proceedings complained against had been taken under sec. 3 of the Revenue Recovery Act (No. 1 of 1890 ). and the petitioner was not entitled to any notice under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. Various documents were produced by the respondent in support of his reply, and the copies thereof were placed on record, Ex. D. 1 is the letter of guarantee executed by Mohanlal petitioner in favour of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration on 28th November 1951, Ex. D. 7 is the letter by Mohanlal agreeing to become a surety for Janwardas. Certain documents showing an enquiry by the Inspector as to the solvency of Mohanlal were also produced Ex. D. 11 is a letter by the department to Janwardas calling upon him to repay the loan and a copy thereof was sent to Mohanlal as well. Ex 13 is a copy of the agreement by which Mohanlal agreed to become surety on various terms. The original documents were pronounced in court. The petitioner had not the courage to deny the genuineness of these documents, and it is obvious that the Court. The ground alone is sufficient to throw out this petition, but as certain question of law were also canvassed as to the illegality of the procedure, we propose to go into them as well.
(2.) LEARNED counsel urged that sec. 15 of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act 1948 (Act No. XII of 1948) permitted recovery of the amount due against the debtor as arrears of land revenue but that it did not permit proceedings against a guarantor. This is a misconception. The section only provides for the mode of recovery, and does not restrict its operation to principal debtors. That section is applicable in all case where the amount is due in accordance with the terms of any contract of under the provisions of sec. 14 (which section, however, is not relevant in the present case ). It was next argued that when any amount as to be recovered as arrears of land revenue in Rajasthan, the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act come into play, and before any action can be taken for recovery, certificate has to be filed in the office of the Collector and a notice is to be served on the debtor under sec. 6, which permits the defaulter whin 30 days to raise any objection under sec. 8 of that Act. Reliance was placed on Jai Singh vs. State of Raj. (l)and it was contended that if notice was not served under sec. 6, he was deprived of this right to question the legality of the demand which was a right conferred upon him by the statute, and, therefore, the proceedings for recovery without notice under sec. 6 were illegal. The proceedings, which are being taken against the petitioner, are under the Revenue Recovery Act (No. 1 of 1890 read with sec. 15 of the Rehabilitation Finance Administration Act. When the sum became due, the Administrator of Rehabilitation Finance requested the Collector of Delhi under sec. 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act (No. I of 1890)for realisation of the amount, and the Collector of Delhi sent a certificate to the Collector of Jaipur under the provisions of the same section. The direction under sec. 5 is to take proceedings to recover the sum as if it were an arrear of land revenue. The procedure for recovery of arrears of land revenue is by distress, attachment of property, or civil imprisonment, and does not contemplate any further notice. The matter of recovery of public demands is in the concurrent list, and the Central Act, viz the Revenue Recovery Act No. I of 1890, read with Act XXXIII of 1950, therefore, supersedes the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. The scheme of the Central Act is for proceedings to be taken for recovery, and the person against whom the action is to be taken can only institute a suit, after he has made the payment under protest. The scheme of the Rajasthan Act is, however, different, as it permits an objection prior to the recovery of the amount, and even permits such person to institute a suit on service of notice previous to making any payment. The provisions applicable to a case of this nature are the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, and not those of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act. This petition has no force, and is accordingly dismissed with costs, the fee of the respondent's counsel being assessed at Rs. 80/ -. .;