This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking to quash a recovery citation. The court held that since the petitioner admitted inability to repay, there was no ground to interfere with the recovery proceedings initiated under the U.P. Land Revenue Code.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35681 of 2018
Petitioner :- Ravindra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Shri Aditya Singh Parihar, learned Advocate holding holding brief of Shri Rahul Sahai learned counsel for the respondents is present.
The present petition is directed against the recovery citation dated 12.9.2018 issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Pilibhit, District Pilibhit.
There are two main prayers in the present petition are as under:-
"A. Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery citation dated 12.9.2018 issued by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Pilibhit, District Pilibhit. (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition).
B. Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to auction the mortgage land of the petitioner and recover the entire outstanding amount."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not in a position to repay the loan and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the mortgaged land of the petitioner be put to auction for recovery of the entire outstanding amount.
Once the recovery citation has been issued by the Tehsildar in view the demand raised by the bank, it will proceed for recovery under Sections 174 and 176 of the U.P. Land Revenue Code, 2006 by adopting the mode of attachment and auction.
In view of the admission of the petitioner that he is not in position to liquidate the debt, there is no occasion to interfere in the recovery proceedings.
The present petition is, accordingly, found misconceived and hence dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.11.2018 Jyotsana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner should be quashed given his inability to repay the loan.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Pal Singh
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
