1. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 4969/2008 (Smt. Savita ben Thakur Das Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) shall also govern the disposal of Writ Petition No. 4972/2008 (Rupesh Thakur Das Patel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). Since both these petitions involve a common question of law, they were heard together.

2. The petitioners herein have prayed for quashing of recovery proceedings and notification dated 4.3.2008, Annexure P-l, issued by the Tahsildar (respondent No.3) in respect of proclamation of sale of their immovable property for recovery of dues of the Citizen Cooperative Bank Limited (respondent No.4) (in short "the Bank").

3. The petitioners are mother and son. They, for their business, took financial assistance of huge amount from the Bank after mortgaging their agricultural land in the form of security against the loan. The petitioners after paying some installments committed default. The Bank, therefore, initiated recovery proceedings against them under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 but did not pursue the proceedings and instead it took recourse for recovery of dues under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Dhan (Shodhya Rashiyon Ki Vasuli) Adhiniyam, 1987 (in short "the Adhiniyam"). The Bank sent a certificate on 10.2.2005 to the Collector for recovery of dues who, in turn, issued the Revenue Recovery Certificate on 15.2.2005 against the petitioners. The Tahsildar thereupon issued demand notices to the petitioners and when these notices were not honored, he issued the impugned proclamation for sale of the immovable property of petitioners mortgaged with the Bank. The property was auctioned on 11.4.2008 and the sale was ultimately finalized in favour of one Surya Developers being the highest bidder for an amount of Rs.20,21,000/-. The auction purchaser has also deposited the amount with the Bank.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that in Manoj Tarwala v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others [2007 RN 203 = 2006 (3) MPHT 443], a Division Bench of this Court has held that Revenue Recovery Certificate issued at the instance of Bank is executable under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the proceedings initiated in similar matters by the Bank against several defaulters have been held to be legal and valid.

5. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that their land, being an agricultural land measuring less than four hectares, could not have been attached and sold for the recovery of dues as the attachment and sale of such land is not possible under section 147 read with section 154-A of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code (in short, "the Code"). According to their learned counsel, the recovery proceedings against the petitioners were, therefore, bad in law and deserved to be quashed. The learned counsel for Bank, on the other hand, justified the validity of the recovery proceedings.

6. The object and purpose of the Adhiniyam is to provide for the speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to the State Government, Government Companies and certain categories of Corporations and Banking Companies. The respondent Bank admittedly falls within the meaning of "Banking Company" as defined under section 2 (b) of the Adhiniyam and section 3 provides the procedure for recovery of dues of the Banking Company as arrear of land revenue under the Code. There is also a saving provision section 4 in the Adhiniyam, which reads as under:

"4. Savings. -- (1) Nothing in section 3 shall, --

(a) affect any interest of the State Government, a Corporation, a Government Company or any Banking Company in any property, created by any mortgage, charge, pledge or other encumbrance; or

(b) affect any right or remedy against any person other than a person referred to in that section, in respect of a contract of indemnity or guarantee entered into in relation to an agreement referred to in that section or in respect of any interest referr