IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH WRIT PETITION No. 865 of 2012 ASHISH BANSAL Versus M.P.STATE AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.) AND OTHERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance:

Shri Nikhil Bhatele – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shyam Prakash Jain – Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri Sanjay Singh Kushwaha – Government Advocate for respondent No.3/State.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 20.01.2026 Deliveredon : 10.02.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the RRC (Revenue Recovery Certificate)/(demand notice) issued to the petitioner under Section 146 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred as to “the Code of 1959”) for recovery of the dues of respondent No.2, i.e., Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sabalgarh, amounting to Rs.84,709/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Section 146 of the Code of 1959 deals with recovery of arrears of land revenue. The dues, if any, of the respondent No.2 are not the arrears of land revenue and, therefore, recovery proceedings under Section 146 of the Code of 1959 for recovery of the same cannot be resorted to. By referring to Chapter XI of the Code of 1959 and Section 141 contained therein, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the “arrears” of land revenue and “defaulter” are defined therein. He submits that Section 140 of the Code of 1959 provides the date on which the land revenue falls due and becomes payable. In the instant case, neither the petitioner is in arrears of any land revenue nor, he is a defaulter in terms of Section 141 of the Code of 1959 and therefore, the impugned recovery proceedings are not maintainable against him.

4. By placing reliance on the “Rules regarding recovery of sums as arrears of land revenue” formulated under Section 155 of the Code of 1959, and particularly Rule 2, sub-rule (e) contained therein, he submits that even if, for the sake of argument, Section 155 of the Code of 1959 has been invoked by the respondents, then also, there has to be a process by which, the sums can be recovered and the process of recovery of arrear as provided under Section 147 of the Code of 1959 is not available to the respondents. Learned counsel also places reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Manoharlal Uttamchand Awal vs. State of M.P. and Others, reported in 1978 MPLJ 113 to contend that there is a marked difference between “arrears of land revenue” and “money recoverable as an arrear of land revenue” within the meaning of Section 155 of the Code of

1959.

5. On merits, against the amount due stated by the respondent No.2, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the return of the respondent No.2, their dues are against the proprietorship of firm M/S Brajmohan Virendrakumar and no document has been filed by the respondents to substantiate that the petitioner herein has any relation with the proprietorship firm M/S Brajmohan Virendrakumar and therefore, dues,if any, of the respondent No.2 against firm M/S Brajmohan Virendrakumar cannot be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that the dues alleged against M/S BrajmohanVirendrakumar are of the years 1999-2000 as per Annexure R-1 whereas, the impugned recovery notice has been issued in the year 2011 and therefore, the dues if any of the respondent No.2 are there, then also, their recovery is barred in view of the Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 which provides that the recovery proceedings are to be initiated within a period of three ye