9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sanctioned loan was not disbursed, therefore, according to petitioners the unit could no go into production. The instalments were not paid, consequently the Corporation recalled the entire loan on 14.9.1978 and issued a recovery certificate on 2.1.1979 to the Collector under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (in brief the Act) for recovering its dues as arrears of land revenue. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate in recovery proceedings on 20.8.1981 auctioned the unit of the petitioners as well as the mortgaged Bhumidhari plot No. 439 belonging to the petitioner No. 2 Kailash Chand, area 6 Biswa and 15 biswansi, situated in village Khanpur, Pargana Dhar, Tehsil Anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr in favour of Shri Ved Prakash Sharma for ₹ 30,000/-. The personal assets of the petitioners were auctioned for ₹ 3,500/-. The Collector issued sale certificate on 20.8.1981. The petitioner No. 1 did not have any movable or immovable property and petitioner No. 2, after the auction sale, was left with no property. Only wearing apparels and utensils were spared. The Tehsildar after deducting the expenses, sent ₹ 30,134.50/- on 20.3.1982 to the Corporation along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the letter issued by the Corporation to Collector Bulandshahar, that in earlier recovery proceedings, the assets and the unit were sold and the balance amount was recovered from the personal property of the borrowers. From Paragraph 23 of the counter affidavit it appears that some correspondence took place between the Corporation and Tehsildar and on 16.12.2000 the Tehsildar informed that Sri Kailash Chandra, petitioner No. 2 had been arrested and. his moveable and immovable property had been attached. The allegation in Paragraph 19 of the writ petition that the petitioner No. 1 Narendra Kumar had learnt that warrant of arrest had been issued against him also was denied for want of knowledge. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri Manish Kumar Nigam urged that recovery proceedings initiated by the Corporation on 30.8.2000 were barred by limitation and no amount could be recovered from the petitioner. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Anr. v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 657. He further urged that from Paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit it is clear that the Corporation on 31.3.1986 had waived off/written off the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct of avoiding the usual delay involved in the disposal of suits in Civil Courts and providing for an expeditious remedy that the Act was enacted. It has been reiterated by the Apex Court in V.R. Kalliyanikutty (supra) while dealing with Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 where the provision for recovery of arrears of land revenue are similar. The Court observed : "Thus in public interest the State Government has made the said Act applicable for speedy recovery of loans given by a bank for agricultural purpose as well as for speedy recovery of loans given by Kerala Financial Corporation. The overall scheme of the Act, therefore, is to provide for speedy recovery, not merely of public revenue but also of certain other kinds of loans, which are required to be recovered speedily in public interest." 10. Recovery of the sum due under the Act speedily is thus, the main object of the Act. In V.R. Kalliyanikutty (supra) the Apex Court while examining the words 'amount due' in Kerala Revenue Recovery Act observed that the amount due could be amount which could be recovered in law. The Court held that an amount which is not recoverable for any valid reason ceases to be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-A of the U.P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Act 1950 mutatis mutandis apply as they applied to proceedings in a Civil Court. Section 287-A is extracted below : "287-A. Payment under protest and suit for recovery.--(1) Whenever proceedings are taken under this Chapter against any person for the recovery of any (arrears of land revenue), (or for recovery of any sum of money recoverable as (arrears of land revenue) he may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment, the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may sue the State Government in the Civil Court for the amount so paid, and in such suit the plaintiff may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 278, give evidence of the amount, if any, which he alleges to be due from him. (2) No protest under this section shall enable the person making the same to sue in the Civil Court, unless it is made at the time of payment in writing and signed by such person or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf." A person paying the amount under protest can approach the Civil Court. In such proceedings the plea of recovery bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seven Lakhs) on a loan of ₹ 1,37,800/- taken in the year 1975. The law of limitation has been made in public interest providing for limitation for taking action within the time prescribed. The law expects everyone to be vigilant. If one sleeps over his right, the remedy due to lapse of time may become barred. The right to recover remains but it cannot be enforced except within the framework of law. 12. The law of limitation makes available a right of defence with the debtor to claim that after the expiry of period of limitation the remedy to recover the amount by the creditor from him had become time barred. The Act has been enforced for speedy recovery of dues of the State Government, U.P. Financial Corporation etc. as mentioned in the Act. It has not been enacted with a purpose to enlarge the limitation nor the rights of the creditor had been enlarged to recover claims of sum due that had become time barred. It is a settled law, that no one can extend the period of limitation by taking advantage of his own wrong. The Apex Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar, (2003) 3 SCC 128, while considering the Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which does not provide any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t cannot be relied. It is insufficient to prove that limitation to start recovery survived after eighteen years. 13. The allegation in Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that property of the petitioners might not have been sold by revenue authorities is not supported by any material. Even assuming that the revenue authorities failed to discharge their duty in accordance with law, it could not stop the limitation. The cause of action for recovery of the loan arose when the petitioner committed default. The respondents initiated recovery within time. But once the recovery certificate was returned after sale of petitioners' assets, the recovery proceedings came to an end. If something remained or any property was not sold, the proceedings could have started but in accordance with law. The time taken to recover the amount was arrested when recovery proceedings were started. It started running again when recovery certificate was returned. Since no proceedings were initiated for nearly eighteen years, the proceedings for recovery became barred by time. 14. The recovery proceedings initiated in 2000 were further contrary to law as the Board of Directors of the Corporation in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
