ORDER

1.Leave granted.

2. The appellant is a judgment-debtor. In terms of a consent decree of 26-12-2002, the appellant was to make payment of Rs 445 lakhs to the respondent Bank within three months in satisfaction of the Banks claim. In default of such payment, the appellant would be liable to make payment of the entire amount of Rs 4,06,00,549.92 together with interest at 16.75% per annum.

3. The appellant did not pay in terms of the settlement. A recovery certificate was issued on 27-8-2003 at the instance of the respondent against the appellants for attachment and sale of two plots of land being CTSs Nos. 256 and 257 belonging to the appellant. Both the plots were valued by the government-approved valuer at Rs 13,82,61,132.50. The two plots were depicted in a sketch map annexed to the report. CTS No. 256 consists of a bungalow and was valued at Rs 1,68,66,347.50. CTS No. 257 which is adjacent to and lies to the south of CTS No. 256 and consists of a factory building was valued at Rs 12,13,94,800. According to this report, the access to both the plots was from Suren Road which lies to the north of CTS No. 256. A proclamation of sale was published and the date of sale of the two plots was fixed on 29-3-2004.

4. The appellant then filed a writ petition challenging Regulation 60 of the Debts Recovery Tribunals, Maharashtra and Goa, Regulations of Practice, 2003 (referred to as "the Regulations") on the ground that it was contrary to Section 29 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (referred to as "the Act") read with Rules 52 and 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The proclamation of sale was also challenged on the ground that the valuation had been fixed without hearing the appellants, without reference to the valuation report submitted by the appellants (according to which the value of the two plots was Rs 18 crores) and without making the report available to the appellant. The third ground of challenge was that only that portion of the plot should be sold as was necessary for recovery of the dues of the respondent Bank against the appellants. A copy of the valuation report on which the respondent Bank had acted was made available to the appellants in the course of the proceedings before the High Court.

5. The High Court negatived the challenge to Regulation 60 but allowed the writ petition to the extent of setting aside the proclamation of sale. By the order passed on 19-3-2004, the respondent Bank was directed to issue a fresh proclamation only in respect of CTS No. 257 incorporating a reserve price of Rs 12 crores. Certain other consequential directions were given which are not relevant for the purpose of these appeals.

6. At the time of issuing notice on the special leave petitions, this Court had directed the status quo to be maintained. That interim order is continuing.

7. The appellants assertion is that Regulation 60 is contrary to Section 29 of the Act read with Rules 52 and 53 of Schedule II of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 29 of the Act provides that the provisions of the Second and Third Schedules to the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962, as in force from time to time shall, as far as possible, apply with necessary modifications to proceedings for

recovery. of a debt under the Act. .

8. Rules 52 and 53 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 which have been relied on by the appellant read as follows:

"52. Sale and proclamation of sale.-(I) The Tax Recovery Officer may direct that any immovable property which has been attached, or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the certificate, shall be sold. (2) Where any immovable property is ordered to be sold, the Tax Recovery Officer shall cause a proclamation of the intended sale to be made in the language of the district.

53. Contents of proclamation.-A proclamation of sale of immovable property shall be drawn up after notice to the defa