Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Learned counsel seeks to contend that a procedure prescribed for enforcement of process against land must be understood as a procedure that causes an interdict against attachment through enforcement provided under the Civil Procedure Code. This argument, in my view, is fallacious. for there are no means by which the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be incorporated in a procedure, which is independently prescribed under the Land Revenue Act. They operate in two distinct fields and certain special privileges which Civil Procedure Code provides for enforcement of decrees cannot be applied to enforcement of awards. The Motor Vehicles Act itself is a complete Code and the extent to which Civil Procedure Code provisions are applicable are brought through the Motor Vehicles Act itself. Such procedure and powers are set out under section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act. The references to civil and criminal procedures are available only in so far as taking of evidence on oath, enforcement of attendance of witnesses and compelling the party for production of documents. Power under section 174 is independent of any power to recover under the Civil Procedure Code itself by attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor. If the decree holder seeks to resort to attachment of the property enforcing the award as a decree of civil court, he shall be perfectly at liberty to do so but if the recovery of money is sought from any person under an award after securing a certificate for amount from the Collector then the procedure that the Collector will follow shall only be what is provided under the Land Revenue Act itself. {Para 2}
3. The issue of whether the exceptions provided under the Civil Procedure Code for properties that cannot be attached could be invoked in proceedings for recoveries under the Land Revenue Act has come for consideration before the Supreme Court itself in State of Punjab v. Dina Nath, 1986 RRR 490. The point which was directly at issue was whether an attachment and sale of property for recovery of revenue due to State was barred in respect of building used for residential purpose and whether the provisions of section 60(ccc) would be applicable was taken up and the court held that exemption was only for properties specified under the Act. The court held that Punjab Land Revenue Act was a complete Code providing for modes and machinery for recovery of arrears of revenue and the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to attachment and sale in revenue recovery proceedings. The award which is passed by Tribunal, which obtains a status through a certificate issued by the Collector as land revenue payable, ought to therefore obtain a different treatment and the trappings of the Civil Procedure Code and limitations contained therein cannot, therefore, be attracted. This point was also subsequently decided under the Motor Vehicles Act itself by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Vorghese v. Sunny, 2009 ACJ 2704 (Kerala), where the court held that execution of award by Tribunal after issuance of a certificate to the land recovery authority cannot avail to a judgment-debtor to plead for the benefit of section 60(1)(c) of the Civil Procedure Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.R. No. 2000 of 2012
Decided On: 04.02.2013
Prem Chand Vs. Akashdeep
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Kannan, J.
Citation: MANU/PH/4481/2013,2014 ACJ 1467 (P&H).
