Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangtu Singh vs State And Ors. (2025:Rj-Jd:45400) on 15 October, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (1 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6007/2014
1. Mangtu Singh S/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 49 years.
2. Darshan Singh S/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 58 years.
3. Pappu Singh S/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 45 years.
4. Angrej Singh S/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 42 years.
All are by caste Majbi Sikh, R/o Chak 5-KAM, Tehsil Anoopgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar (Revenue)
Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. State Bank of India, Branch Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganganagar, through its Branch Manager.
3. Gudi Bai D/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 56 years.
4. Baby Bai D/o Late Karnail Singh, aged around 54 years.
5. Pali Bai D/o Late Karnail Singh, aged aground 52 years,
respondent No.3 to 5 are by caste Majbi Sikh, R/o Chak 5-KAM,
Tehsil Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Jain with
Mr. Harshit Yadav and Ms. Kusha
Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
15/10/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
recovery proceedings initiated against the father of the present
petitioners by the Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh in terms of
Section 13 (1) of Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations
(Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (for brevity hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act of 1974').
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (2 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery
proceedings are totally illegal as no notice in terms of Section
13(1) of the Act of 1974 was ever served on the petitioners prior
to the initiation of the said recovery proceedings. Counsel submits
that the notice of the recovery proceedings was allegedly served
on the grandson of the borrower i.e. Karnail Singh. Order sheet
dated 13.07.2013 reflects that the borrower presented himself
before the Tehsildar and prayed for time to deposit the remaining
due amount whereas the borrower Karnail Singh had already
expired on 29.03.2006. Order sheet dated 16.07.2013 is therefore
factually incorrect.
3. While relying upon the Division Bench of this Court in Chet
Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajastha & Ors.: D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.3874 of 2004 (decided on 22.09.2004) counsel
submitted that the Prescribed Authority is first required to make a
determination of the liability/dues and after the said
determination, is required to call upon the borrower to pay the
amount due. It is only after the said amount as called upon, not
been paid within a period of three months, that the recovery/
execution proceedings can be undertaken. Herein, without any
determination of liability, straightaway the recovery proceedings
have been undertaken and that too against a dead person.
4. No reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the
respondents.
5. Counsel for the respondents however submitted that notice
dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure-4) and 25.09.2014 (Annexure-5)
were very well served on the borrower before initiating the
recovery proceedings and hence there was a valid compliance of
Section 13 of the Act of 1974.
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (3 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
6. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
7. In Chet Ram (supra), the Division Bench of this Court while
adjudicating a challenge laid to Section 13 of the Act of 1974,
observed and held as under:-
7. The fact that summary procedure is to be adopted by
the Prescribed Authority for determining the amount
after giving an opportunity of hearing does inhere into it
the requirement to adhere to a fair procedure by
statutory provision incorporating sticking to principles of
natural justice.
8. It mandates in no uncertain terms that before resort
can be had to recovery the amount of debt by selling
the immovable property, charged or mortgaged to
secure repayment, the Prescribed Authority is
required to determine the liability that exists. The
determination of liability is to be made after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the debtor. It
is only after liability of debtor is determined, the
Prescribed Authority is required to give a
minimum three month's notice calling upon the
debtor to make payment of the sum so
determined. If the debtor fails to make payment
for three months after receipt of notice, only and
only then, the Prescribed Authority can take
recourse to realize the determined amount by sale
of debtors such interest in immovable property or
the immovable property which is charged or
mortgaged with the Bank.
9. Thus, ample safeguard is provided against any
arbitrary action by the Prescribed Authority.
10. The requirement to determine the amount due
before taking the course to recovery through sale of
immovable property, the debtor gets an opportunity to
raise objections about any amount claimed to be due
from him to the Bank taking recourse to Sec. 13. If any
objection is raised by the debtor the Prescribed
Authority has to determine the same after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the debtor and creditor to
support their respective claims. Thus, the debtor is
involved in decision making process, which ought to
satisfy the test of just, fair and free from arbitrariness."
11. Moreover, the judgment-debtor having failed to
deposit the amount as ordered, has further safeguard
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (4 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
against the sale of his immovable property in as much
as the order determining liability of debtor is deemed to
be a decree of civil Court and is to be executed in the
same manner as a decree of civil Court. It has also
been stated in clause (ii) of Explanation that for the
purpose of exercising powers for enforcing the order
under sub-sec. (1) the Prescribed Authority is deemed
to be a civil Court. Thus, so far execution of the order is
concerned, the provisions of CPC has been incorporated
by reference. That being the position, it cannot be said
that the provisions of Sec. 13 confers uncanalised and
unbriddled authority on the Prescribed Authority,
without any safeguard against arbitrary recovery. We,
therefore, do not find any merit in challenge to the vires
of Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit
Operations (Removal of Difficulties), Act, 1974.
12. The primary apprehension of the learned counsel for
the petitioner in this connection is that the Prescribed
Authority is usually acting without giving opportunity of
hearing to the judgment-debtor and considers the
application of Bank to be an execution petition and
without determining the liability, it is proceeding to
attach the property for sale and commences execution
proceedings. We are afraid that any action taken by the
Prescribed Authority which is contrary to law, cannot
make the law itself and open to challenge as being ultra
vires. In such event, the act/acts of the Prescribed
Authrotity, may be open to challenge on the ground
being contrary to statutory provision and invalid. The
action itself may be subject to challenge either in the
forum as provided under the Act or if no other
alternative remedy is available then by seeking judicial
review invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of superior
Courts.
13. Accordingly, the petition challenging the vires of
Sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations
(Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 is repelled."
8. What can be concluded from the above ratio is that in terms
of Section 13, the Prescribed Authority, before resorting to recover
the amount of debt, is required to determine the liability that
exist. The said determination of liability is to be made after giving
an opportunity of hearing to the debtor. It is only after the said
liability been determined that the Prescribed Authority is required
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (5 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
to give a minimum three months' notice calling upon the debtor to
make payment of the sum so determined. If the debtor fails to
make payment within a period of three months, it is only then that
the Prescribed Authority can take recourse to realize the
determined amount.
9. A bare perusal of the record reveals that vide notices dated
28.11.2013 and 25.09.2014 (Annexures-3 and 4 respectively) the
debtor was called upon to deposit the due amount of
Rs.5,58,790/- and in absence thereof, the mortgaged property of
the debtor was to be auctioned.
10. The above notices can in no terms to be said to be the
determination of liability as envisaged under Section 13 of the Act
of 1974. The above notices are simplicitor notices calling upon the
debtor to deposit the amount. There is no determination as to
whether the amount as reflected in the said notices was actually
due or not.
11. Further, it is not disputed that Karnail Singh- the debtor, had
expired on 29.03.2006. In view of the said fact, order sheet dated
16.07.2013 of the Executing Court (Tehsildar, Anoopgarh) is
clearly incorrect.
12. In view of the overall facts and in view of the ratio laid down
in Chet Ram (supra), the recovery proceedings initiated by the
Tehsildar (Revenue), Anoopgarh vide Annexure-7 and the
consequential attachment proceedings dated 12.05.2014
(Annexure-6) deserves to be and are hereby quashed and set
aside.
13. Writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the respondents
to serve a fresh notice on the legal representatives of the
borrower/debtor Karnail Singh/petitioners within a period of 15
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:45400] (6 of 6) [CW-6007/2014]
days from now. The petitioners, on receipt of the notice, shall be
under an obligation to reply to the same and the Prescribed
Authority shall thereupon determine the due liability of the debtor
in accordance with law. The further proceedings shall be
undertaken by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the ratio laid
down in Chet Ram (Supra).
14. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
46-DhananjayS/-
(Uploaded on 19/10/2025 at 03:28:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
