1962 Supreme(Cal) 20

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SINHA, J.
Bulu Rani Seal
Versus
Member, Board of Revenue
Civil Revn. Case No.2310 of 1959
Decided On : 18-01-1962

The provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, can be utilized in the execution of a certificate issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, only to the extent that they are not in conflict with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.

Headnote:

REVENUE RECOVERY ACT, 1890 - SECTION 3 - PUBLIC DEMANDS RECOVERY ACT, BENGAL - SECTION 7 - CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER REVENUE RECOVERY ACT - EXECUTION - CERTIFICATE OFFICER NOT COLLECTOR - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 7 OF LOCAL ACT - INVALID - TRANSFER SUBSEQUENT TO PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 6 OF REVENUE RECOVERY ACT - VALID.

Fact of the Case:

A loan was taken from the Rehabilitation Finance Administration by a partnership firm, with two individuals standing as surety for repayment. The loan was not repaid, and proceedings were initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. A certificate was issued by the Collector of Delhi and sent to the Collector of 24-Parganas for execution. The Collector of 24-Parganas issued a fresh certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, and served a notice under Section 7 of the Act. The petitioner, who had purchased the property of one of the sureties, filed a claim before the Certificate Officer, which was allowed. The Collector allowed the appeal, holding that the notice under Section 7 was not valid. The Commissioner set aside the Collector's order, and the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the certificate proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the certificate issued by the Collector of Delhi should have been executed, and a fresh certificate should not have been issued by the Certificate Officer, 24 Parganas. The court also held that the Certificate Officer was not competent to issue a notice under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, and the issuing of such a notice was incompetent and contrary to law. The court further held that no proclamation under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act having been issued, subsequent transfers were not invalid.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, could be utilized in the execution of a certificate issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. 2. Whether the Certificate Officer, 24 Parganas, was competent to issue a notice under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal. 3. Whether the subsequent transfer of the property was valid in the absence of a proclamation under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, could be utilized in the execution of a certificate issued under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, only to the extent that they were not in conflict with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. 2. The Certificate Officer, 24 Parganas, was not competent to issue a notice under Section 7 of the Public Demands Recovery Act, Bengal, as he was not the Collector as defined under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. The subsequent transfer of the property was valid in the absence of a proclamation under Section 6 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890.

Final Decision: The court quashed the certificate issued by the Certificate Officer, 24-Parganas, and all proceedings had thereunder, including the orders of the Collector, the Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue. The court directed that further proceedings may be commenced from the stage of the certificate sent by the Collector of Delhi to the Collector of 24-Parganas under the Revenue Recovery Act.