The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Cooperative Bank does not fall within the definition of a bank under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and that recovery of debts due to the Cooperative Bank is not within the ambit of the 1993 Act.

( 1. ) THE petitioner had availed a cash credit limit of Rs. 10 lakhs against the security of mortgage of his property for his business from the Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited, Burhanpur, District Burhanpur, M. P. (for short the Cooperative Bank ). A revenue recovery certificate, dated 23-3-2005 was issued by Tehsildar, Burhanpur under the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Land Revenue Code) to recover an amount of Rs. 11,26,796/- in the said cash credit account due from the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court registered as W. P. No. 1711 of 2005, contending inter alia that the said amount said to be due from the petitioner can only be recovered under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the 1993 Act) and that the Tehsildar had not jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid recovery certificate under the Land Revenue Code. By order dated 7-4-2005, a learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of the said W. P. No. 1711 of 2005 with the direction that the petitioner would be at liberty to file an objection raising this jurisdictional issue. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a detailed representation before the Tehsildar Burhanpur contending inter alia that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner being more than Rs. 10 lakhs can only be recovered by the Co-operative Bank under the 1993 Act and not under the Land Revenue Code. By order dated 22-8-2005, the Tehsildar, Burhanpur rejected the said contention and held that the amount even though more than Rs. 10 lakhs can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the M. P. Lokdhan Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli Adhiniyam, 1987 for short "the 1987 Adhiniyam. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22-8-2005 passed by the Tehsildar, Burhanpur in Revenue Case No. 104- A/76-04-05, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer that the order dated 22-8-2005 passed by the Tehsildar, Burhanpur be quashed and pending disposal of the writ petition, the operation of the impugned order dated 22-8-2005 and its execution be stayed.

( 2. ) WHEN the matter was taken up for admission by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Sharad Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount recoverable from the petitioner exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs and hence the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to recover the amount of arrears of land revenue under the 1987 Adhiniyam. He citad before the learned Single Judge a decision in Sanlosh Mishra v. Central Bank of India AIR2003 MP 218 , I (2004 )BC461 , [2004 ]122 Compcas929 (MP ), [2003 ]44 SCL547 (MP ), in which a learned Single Judge of this Court relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank AIR 2000 SC 1535 as well as Mis. Unique. Butyle Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U. P. Financial Corporation AIR2003 SC 2103 , 2003 (51 )BLJR666 , [2003 ]113 Compcas374 (SC ), [2003 (2 )JCR156 (SC )], (2003 )2 SCC455 , [2003 ]41 SCL418 (SC ), [2002 ] supp5 SCR666 , (2003 )1 UPLBEC901 had taken a view that the provisions of the 1993 Act would override the provisions of the 1987 Adhiniyam in view of the provisions of Section 34 (1) of the 1993 Act. While considering the aforesaid contention of Mr. Sharad Verma, the learned Single Judge found that in M. L. Chourasiya v. Tehsildar AIR2002 MP 151 , 2002 (2 )MPHT480 , a learned Single Judge of this Court had taken a contrary view that the provisions of the 1993 Act do not oust the jurisdiction in any manner, which is to be exercised under Section 3 of the 1987 Adhiniyam for recovery of a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs. Due to divergent opinion of the two learned Single Judges of this Court in the case or Santosh Mishra (supra), and in the case of MX. Chourasiya (supra), the learned Single Judge by order dated 22-9-2005, has referred the following two questions to a Larger Bench: (i) Whether the Co-operative Bank comes within the ambit and sweep of the 1993 Act ? and (ii) If it does not come within the ambit o