( 1 ) THROUGH this Special Civil Application the petitioner seeks to challenge the recovery sought to be made against him at the instance of respondent no. 1, i. e. , Sardar Vallabhbhai Sahakari Bank LIMITED in pursuance of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State of Gujarat under S. 103 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act.

( 2 ) THERE is no dispute that the loan was taken from the respondent No. 1 Bank by the respondent No. 2, i. e. , wife of the present petitioner and the petitioner had stood guarantee for repayment of the loan. It is stated in the petition that the notices were repeatedly given for the recovery of the due amount but the loan was not repaid and in all three awards were passed for the said recovery. It is further stated that in all a sum of Rs. 6,55,925. 00 has been paid. It has also been submitted that this amount has been adjusted against the total claim made by the respondent No. 1 Bank under the said three awards. It is not disputed on behalf of respondent No. 1 Bank that a sum of Rs. 6,55,925. 00, has been deposited but Mr. Dudhia has pointed out that rest of the amount remains to be recovered and according to respondent No. 1 Bank, amount due to be recovered from the petitioner and his wife respondent No. 2 is Rs. 17,09,966. 00. The debtors did not file any objection against the notices which were issued by the Taluka Development Officer and ultimately when the auction was notified to be held on 15-7-1997, the petitioner filed present Special Civil application on 11-7-1997. On 14-7-1997 an ex parte ad-interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner directing that the auction may be held but the same will not be finalised and the bidders will be informed accordingly by the concerned Taluka development Officer. It is pointed out by Mr. Dudhia that since there was stay order passed by this Court and the auction even if held could not have been finalised, the bidders though present did not give any bid and therefore, the auction did not materialise.

( 3 ) THE only ground which has been pressed by Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the petitioner before this Court at the time of arguments is that the notices with regard to the recovery which were issued by the Taluka Development Officer are not valid. He has argued with reference to S. 150 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with S. 155. There is no dispute that the amount in question could be recovered as arrear of land revenue or as a decree of the Civil Court and the creditor could choose either of the two modes. While Mr. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute that the recovery could be made as an arrear of land revenue, his contention is that under S. 150 (d) it could be recovered by sale of the defaulters immovable property. Under S. 155 only the Collector may cause the right, title and interest of the defaulter in any immovable property other than the land on which the arrear is due to be sold.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel Mr. Bhatt on behalf of the petitioner and I have also gone through the relevant provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. Under s. 152 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code notice of demand may be issued on or after the day following that on which the arrear accrues and the State Government may from time to time frame rules for the issue of such notices and shall fix the costs recoverable from the defaulter as an arrear of land revenue and direct by what officer such notices shall be issued. The scheme of the Code is to be seen and applied in its entirety. No particular provision can be read in isolation. Once the provision is there that the notice of demand may be issued by an officer directed by the State government under the rules framed by it from time to time, the Taluka Development officer could certainly issue such notice of demand in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government for issuing such notices. In the first place, there is a presumpti