Disposed

Producin Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC11 Feb 2025WPC/7858/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a revenue recovery certificate for Rs. 1.96 crore raised after termination of a sal seed purchase agreement. The court found the procedure under Sections 145-147 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code was not followed and no proper opportunity of hearing was given, quashed the RRC and rejection of objection, and remitted the matter for fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

RRC dated 05.04.2011 and rejection of objection dated 19.04.2012 quashed; matter remitted to the concerned Tahsildar for fresh proceedings under Sections 145-147 within 90 days.

Producin Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

2025:CGHC:7595

¶3

Digitally signed by SIDDHANT SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.02.18 10:40:49 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 7858 of 2011

¶7

Producin Pvt. Ltd. A company registered under the Provisions of Companies act, 1956, Having its Registered Office at Mumbai and its Branch Office at 109, Mandi Road, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 493 445 Through its Authorised Signatory Vijay Kumar Sinha, S/o Late Shri R.L. Sinha, Aged about 46 years, R/o Shankar Nagar, Ward No. 1, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Chhattisgarh State Minor Forest Produce (T& D) Cooperative Federation Limited, Through its Managing Director, having its registered Office at A-25, VIP Estate, Khamardih, Shankar Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

Zila Laghu Vanopaj Sahkari Union Maryadit, Through its Managing Director, Marwahi Forest Division, District Union – Marwahi, Pendra Road, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

The Collector, District Bilaspur, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶14

The Additional Tehsildar & Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund, District – Mahasamund Chhattisgarh

¶15

The Collector, Nariman Point, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶16

The Tehsildar, Government Dues Recovery, Fort Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶17

... Respondent(s)

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate along with Mr. Ashish Mittal, Advocate For State/Respondents No. 1, : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer 4 & 5 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶20

12.02.2025

¶21

¶22

By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

¶23

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions holding that the issuance of Revenue Recovery Certificate issued by the Respondent No. 4 against the Petitioner Company is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law; and

¶24

10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the transfer of Revenue Recovery Certificate to Collector Mumbai and demand notice dated 1.12.2011 against the Petitioner; and

¶25

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, directing the Respondents to consider and decide the representation / objection submitted by the Petitioner in accordance with the law; and

¶26

10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which it deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶27

10.5 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order. issue a direction or necessary command by way of writ of certiorari and quash the letter dated 19.4.2012 issued by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure P-20).”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 06.05.2009, the

¶29

petitioner and respondent No. 2 (Managing Director, CG State Minor Forest Produce T&D Cooperative Federation Ltd.) entered into an agreement. According to the agreement, the petitioner was required to purchase ‘'sal seed'’. He would further submit that there was an illegal import of Sal Seed, therefore, the petitioner showed his inability to continue with the purchase. He would also submit that respondent No. 2 was duly communicated with regard to the termination of the agreement on 03.08.2009. He would contend that without holding any enquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the Laghu Vanopaj Sangh has incurred a loss of Rs. 1,96,18,719.87/- due to

¶30

¶31

non-purchase of 'Sal seed'. He would further contend that the Revenue Recovery Certificate (RRC) issued by respondent No. 3 was referred to the District Collector, Mahasamund and on the instance of the District Collector, the concerned Tahsildar issued RRC on 05.04.2011 for a sum of Rs. Rs. 1,96,18,719.87/-. He would also contend that the petitioner filed a reply and also raised an objection. It is further argued that the objection of the petitioner was rejected by respondent No. 3 during the pendency of this petition and the said order has been challenged by way of amendment. It is also argued that the authorities concerned ought to have conducted an enquiry before fastening liability on the petitioner. It is stated that principles of natural justice have been violated and the procedure contemplated under Sections 145 to 147 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code, 1959’) have not been complied with. Thus, he would pray to quash the issuance of RRC dated 05.04.2011 and rejection of objection dated 19.04.2012.

¶32

On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that the petitioner has caused a loss of Rs. 1,96,18,719.87/- by terminating the agreement without sufficient reason. He would further submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, but he failed to explain the reasons for the termination of the agreement. He would also submit that the RRC was issued according to condition No. 12 (III) (c) (2) of the purchase agreement, therefore there was no need to provide the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further contended that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.

¶34

¶35

The petitioner and respondent No. 3 had entered into an agreement and the petitioner agreed to purchase ‘Saal Seed’. On account of certain difficulties felt by the petitioner, a decision was taken to terminate the agreement. The agreement was terminated by the petitioner on 03.08.2009. Respondent No. 3 assessed the loss incurred to it and issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 15.03.2011. The letter dated 15.03.2011 was forwarded to the Collector for the issuance of RRC under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 and the matter was referred to the concerned Tahsildar for necessary action. The concerned Tahsildar vide order dated 05.04.2011 issued a demand notice under Section 146 of the Code, 1959 against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 1,96,18,719.87/-. An objection was raised by the petitioner but the same was turned down by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 19.04.2012.

¶36

Sections 145, 146, & 147 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 read as under:-

¶37

“145. Certified account to be evidence as to arrear and defaulter. -(1) A statement of account, certified by the Collector or by the Tahsildar shall, for the purpose of this Chapter, be presumed to be correct statement of the arrears payable to Government or its amount, and of the person who is the defaulter, until the contrary is proved.

¶38

(2) No notice to defaulter shall be necessary before drawing up the statement referred to in sub-section (1).

¶39

146. Notice of demand. - A Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar may cause a notice of demand to be served on any defaulter before the issue of any process under for the recovery of an arrear.

¶40

147. Process for recovery of arrear. - An arrear of land revenue payable to Government may be recovered by a Tahsildar by any one or more of the following process :-

¶41

(a) by attachment and sale of movable property;

¶42

b) by attachment and sale of the holding on which arrear is due and where such holding consist of more than one survey number or plot number by sale of one or more of such survey number or plot numbers as may be considered necessary to recover the arrears:

¶43

Provided that no holding shall be sold for the recovery of

¶44

¶45

any dues of a co-operative society without first exhausting the procedure prescribed in Section 154-A;

¶46

(bb) by attachment of holding on which arrear is due and letting the same under Section 154-A;

¶47

(bbb) by attachment of any other holding belonging to the defaulter which is used for the purposes of agriculture and letting the same under Section 154-A;

¶48

¶49

Provided that the process specified in clauses (a) and (c) shall not permit the attachment and sale of the following, namely:-

¶50

(i) the necessary wearing apparel, cooking vessels, beds, and bedding of the defaulter, his wife and children, and such personal ornaments, as in accordance with the religious usage, cannot be parted with by any woman;

¶51

(ii) tools of artisans and, if the defaulter is an agriculturist, his implements of husbandry, except an implement driven by mechanical power and such cattle and seed as may, in the opinion of the Tahsildar, be necessary to enable him to earn his livelihood as such;

¶52

(iii) articles set aside excessively for the use of religious endowments;

¶53

(iv) house and other buildings (with the materials and the sites thereof and the land immediately appurtenant thereto and necessary for the enjoyment) belonging to an agriculturist and occupied by him:

¶54

Provided further that the process specified in clause (b) shall not permit attachment and sale of holding where the defaulter holds,-

¶55

(i) six hectares or less than six hectares of land in the Scheduled Area; or

¶56

(ii) four hectares or less than four hectares of land in other areas.

¶57

Explanation. For the purpose of this proviso, "Scheduled Area" means any area declared to be Scheduled Area within the State of Chhattisgarh under paragraph 6 of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India.”

¶58

A perusal of the provisions of Sections 145, 146 & 147 of the Code, 1959;

¶59

and the contents of the order whereby the objection raised by the petitioner was rejected, it is quite vivid that the petitioner was not afforded proper opportunity and the procedure contemplated in above-quoted Sections was not followed; therefore, without making any observation on the merits of the case, the RRC issued by the concerned Tahsildar dated 05.04.2011

¶60

¶61

(Annexure P/10) and the rejection of the objection dated 19.04.2012 (Annexure P/20) are hereby quashed.

¶62

The matter is remitted back to the concerned Tahsildar to initiate a fresh proceeding for the issuance of RRC strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 145, 146 & 147 of the Code, 1959 and take an appropriate decision within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶63

With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

¶64

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶65

$iddhant

Producin Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Producin Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Leenashree Tiwari Vs Dinesh

Ajay Kashyap Vs Smt. Ganga Kashyap

Maheshwari Yadaw @ Chhoti Yadaw Vs Rajendra Singh

Bank of Baroda, Vs District Magistrate

Siddharth Shukla Vs Tarkeshwari Shukla

Birendra Vs Pratap Singh