SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 571

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

Petitioner Advocates:MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) ,Respondent Advocate: GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1)

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.

Headnote:(A) Bombay Land Revenue Code - Sections 150 to 158 - Execution of recovery certificates - The Collector failed to execute recovery certificates issued on 04.12.2010 and 19.09.2011 despite prior court orders - The court directed the District Collector to ensure execution by 01.04.2025, failing which personal appearance is required. (Paras 1, 3, 7)

(B) Authority and Accountability - The statute vests the Collector with the authority to execute recovery certificates, making him accountable for non-execution. (Paras 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court due to inaction by the Collector regarding recovery certificates, which remained unexecuted despite previous orders and scheduled auctions. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized the Collector's responsibility to execute the recovery certificates and mandated personal appearance if not executed by the next hearing date. (Paras 3, 7)

Issues: The main issue was the accountability of the District Collector for the non-execution of recovery certificates. (Paras 1, 3)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Collector is the answerable authority for executing recovery certificates as per the statute, reinforcing the need for accountability in public office. (Paras 5, 7)

Result: The matter is adjourned to 01.04.2025.

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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top