IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3364 of 2025 ==========================================================
ALPESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. MOHD.VAJID A SHAHJADA(12591) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MS SURBHI BHATI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1 ==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER Date : 20/03/2025
ORDER :
(M. K. THAKKER, J.)
1. This is one more glaring example of inaction on the part of the Collector in execution of the recovery certificates issued on 04.12.2010 and 19.09.2011. Earlier, the petitioner has approached to this Court by way of filing the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.12119 of 2016, wherein this Court, after recording the detailed reasons, has directed the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to execute the recovery certificate as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, which is 08.11.2017.
2. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary that previously, a charge was created, and possession of the property was taken by drawing the panchnama, and the date of the auction was fixed on 16.07.2019 at 13:00 hours, which is part of the petition at page Nos.50 and 51. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary that after disposing of the petition though the possession was taken and the auction was fixed, no further proceedings were initiated, and certificate has remained unexecuted till date. Learned advocate Mr.Chaudhary submits that at present, the possession is with the third party, and entries were also mutated in the revenue record regarding the same.
3. In that background, this Court deems it fit to direct the respondent No.1, i.e. the District Collector, Mehsana to ensure that the execution of the recovery certificate, as stated above, be made on or before the next date of hearing, i.e. on 01.04.2025. If the District Collector remain failed in executing the certificate, he shall personally remain before this Court with an explanation of the efforts made since the date of earlier order passed in Special Civil Application No.12119 of 2016.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP Ms.Bhati that the respondent No.1 i.e. District Collector, Mehsana was not a party to the previous proceedings, however in the present proceedings the District Collector has been made a party.
5. This Court would like to refer the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code more particularly Section 150 to Section 158 which are reproduced hereinbelow:
“151. Revenue demands of former years how recoverable. The said processes may be employed for the recovery of arrears of former years as well as of the current year, but the preferences given by sections 137 and 138 shall apply only to demands for the current years:.
Proviso.- Provided that any process commenced in the current year shall be entitled to the said preference, notwithstanding that it may not be fully executed within that year.
152. When notice of demand may issue.-A notice of demand may be issued on or after the day following that on which the arrear accrues.
The State Government may from time to time frame rules for the issue of such notices, and 2[**] shall fix the costs recoverable from the defaulter as an arrear of revenue, and direct by what officer such notices shall be issued.
153. The occupancy or alienated holding for which arrear is due may be forfeited. The Collector may declare the occupancy or alienated holding in respect of which an arrear of land revenue is due, to be forfeited to 3[4[State] Government), and sell or otherwise dispose of the same under the provisions of sections 56 and 57, and credit the proceeds, if any, to the defaulter's accounts:
Proviso. Provided that the Collector shall not declare any such occupancy or alienated holding to be forfeited-
(a) unless previously thereto he shall have issued a proclamation and written notices of the intended declaration in the manner prescribed by sections 165 and 166 for sales of immovable property, and
154. Distraint and sale of defaulter's movable property.- The Collector may also cause the defaulter's movable property to be distrained and sold.
By whom to be made. Such distraint shall be made by such officers or class of officers as the Collector] under the orders of 2[3|State] Government) may from time to time direct.
AI
The Collector is accountable for executing recovery certificates as mandated by the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and failure to do so requires personal appearance before the court.
The Real Estate Regulation Act mandates clear procedures for the recovery of amounts due from builders, allowing simultaneous actions against movable and immovable properties.
The court held that the District Magistrate's role in executing recovery orders is strictly executionary, not requiring a hearing or assessment of merits, thus upholding the procedural framework of t....
The District Magistrate's role in executing possession orders under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is strictly executionary, with no requirement for a hearing or discretionary evaluation.
The court reaffirmed that provisions for coercive recovery of funds via arrest warrants under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act do not violate constitutional rights, asserting the validity of su....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.