Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against notice dt. 22.05.1997 issued by the Tehsildar(Revenue), Raisinghnagar under the provisions of Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation(Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (in short "the Act of 1974" hereinafter) whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,03,680/ - plus interest outstanding against the loan advanced by the respondent Bank.
(2.) THE validity of the notice is assailed by the petitioner primarily on the ground that before taking recourse to recovery proceedings through sale of immovable property, the Prescribed Authority was under an obligation to determine the liability after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to raise objections about the amount claimed to be due from him to the Bank. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before issuing notice and determining the amount due, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to raise objections to the claim made by the Bank therefore, the impugned notice deserves to be quashed and set aside on this count alone. The learned Counsel submitted that as per proviso to Section 13(1) of the Act of 1974, the Prescribed Authority cannot direct the sale of the immovable property or interest therein upon which the payment of money is charged or mortgaged, as the case may be unless, the agriculturist or his legal representatives, as the case may be, has been given an opportunity of being heard and has been served with a notice calling upon him to pay the amount due and default has been made in payment thereof for three months after determination of the liability by such authority. The learned Counsel submitted that the requirement to determine the amount after giving an opportunity of hearing before taking the recourse to recovery proceedings through sale of immovable property cannot be dispensed with. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in the matter of Chet Ram and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(1) CDR 661 wherein a Bench of this Court held as under:
(3.) A bare perusal of the proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 13 goes to show that no order is envisaged to the detriment of agriculturist without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the debtor unless the Prescribed Authority is firstly required to determine the liability of the debtor towards the bank on making an application. Any coercive method of recovery cannot be adopted by the Prescribed Authority, unless a notice calling upon the debtor to deposit the amount so determined is given and three months' time elapses thereafter without compliance of such notice. Apparently, it cannot be said that the powers conferred on the Prescribed Authority is uncanalised or unbriddled for taking recourse to recover dues of the bank by sale of immovable property of the judgment debtor. xxxxx xxxx 8. It mandates in no uncertain terms that before resort can be had to recovery the amount of debt by selling the immovable property, charged or mortgaged to secure repayment, the Prescribed Authority is required to determine the liability that exists. The determination of liability is to be made after giving an opportunity of hearing to the debtor. It is only after liability of debtor is determined, the Prescribed Authority is required to give a minimum three month's notice calling upon the debtor to make payment of the sum so determined. If the debtor fails to make payment for three months after receipt of notice, only and only then, the Prescribed Authority can take recourse to realize the determined amount by sale of debtors such interest in immovable property or the immovable property which is charged or mortgaged with the Bank. 4. It is not disputed before this Court that before determining the liability, the petitioner has not been given an opportunity to raise objections against the claim and straight away the petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount determined with the stipulation that on failure to deposit the amount determined, his immovable property shall be attached and put to auction. In these circumstances, the impugned notice deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded to the Prescribed Authority to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 of the Act of 1974.;