During the verification proceedings, the appellant by his application dated February 22, 1948, offered a security of his half share in Azamgarh zamindari, which on enquiry by the Collector for the grant of sanction for the loan, was evaluated at Rs.
In companypliance thereof, the sixth respondent actually paid Rs.
It appears that the companytention that the loan was incurred by him as karta of the joint Hindu family was number raised before the learned Single Judge, as he observes It appears that recovery proceedings were taken against the Mukundpur Farm, which, it is number disputed, belongs exclusively to the petitioner.
He, indeed, denied the factum of partition.
From the Judgment and order dated 23 5 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
It also appears that a sum of Rs.
It is the appellants case that there was a partition between the appellant and his brother, the sixth respondent in 1951, and the hypothecated property was allocated to the share of the sixth respondent.
lt appears that the appellant was a Member of the Legislative Assembly and apparently wielded companysiderable influence.
72,152.50P as principal and Rs.
1,43,869.66p.
The taccavi loan was duly sanctioned by the Government on September 23, 1948.
On May 15, 1953, the appellant applied to the State Government for expunging his name from the debtor sheet.
On June 19, 1959, the appellant has informed of the Governments decision.
Evidently, the State Government after reviewing the matter at all levels, by its order dated August 13, 1957 directed that the realisation of the taccavi dues outstanding against the appellant should be made from the hypothecated property as well as from his person immediately.
He held that this involved a 13 475 SCI/79 disputed question of fact as according to the Government certain plots of Munkundpur Farm were first let out in 1959 60 and number in 1952, and therefore, the bar of s.291 3 was number applicable.
11,000/ .
Despite all this, the appellant has number paid a pie towards the outstanding debt except through companyrcive process.
72 of 1952 under the terms of which, the sixth respondent undertook upon himself the liability to discharge the loan as the property offered in security had fallen to his share.
Thereupon, the appellant on August 4, 1959 moved the Allahabad High Court under Art.
On appeal, the appellant for the first time raised an objection as to his personal liability alleging that the loan in question was incurred by him in the capacity of karta, and, therefore, recoverable from the hypothecated property alone.
to the share of the sixth respondent, he was number personally liable to repay the loan.
He, however, directed the Sales officer that the recovery be made, in the first instance, from the hypothecated property before proceeding against the appellant personally.
The appellants writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
The latter also mentioned that the Collector had been asked, if necessary, to explain the case personally to the Chief Minister.
As regards the companytention based on s.6 e of the Act that the Government had numberpower to make the recovery except from out of the companypensation amount, he held that the provision did number debar the Government from proceeding otherwise.
It further directed that all the modes for recovery legally permissible should be adopted against him simultaneously and pursued vigorously.
Land Reforms Commissioner, companytrary to the Governments orders in that behalf, submitted a report, on his own, upholding the appellants companytention that he had borrowed the loan in his capacity as karta of the joint family, and recommending that the loan in question should be recovered from the hypothecated property.
It, however, seems that numberattachment of any land situated in Tahsil Sagri forming part of the hypothecated property had, in fact, been effected either under s.150 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act or s. 289 1 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
On December 17, 1 1957, the appellant addressed a representation to the Board of Revenue although under the taccavi rules numberappeal or revision lay to the Board.
The recovery proceedings were accordingly initiated against the appellant.
Thereafter, the Collector started proceedings for realisation of Rs.
It appears that some plots at the Mukundpur Farm lying in two villages, Mahnajpur and Ghaibipur, were later taken under the management of the Collector under s. 290 of that Act and half share hereof let out to tenants, and the proceeds were adjusted towards the outstanding taccavi dues.
He appears to have addressed a representation to the Chief Minister on April 1 , A 1956.
The action taken by the Collector was duly endorsed by the Land Reforms Commissioner by his letter dated April 7, 1955, and approved of the State Government by its order dated July 22, 1955.
On the question of accounting he held that the submission calls for an accounting of the amount received by such letting out and there was numbermaterial upon which the decision of the Court companyld rest.
It is somewhat strange that the Addl.
The appellant having defaulted in payment of the loan, the Collector, Azamgarh by his order dated March 24, 1952 directed that the entire ilaqa lying in Tahsil Sagri, district Azamgarh forming part of the hypothecated property be attached under s. 150 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant raised an objection alleging inter alia that the loan had been incurred by him in his capacity as karta of the joint Hindu family and that since the hypothecated property had fallen to .
He negatived the companytention that the Collector had let out a part of the Mukundpur Farm in 1952 and therefore, after expiry of a period often years, the Government was precluded by reason of s.291 3 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from further companytinuing the recovery proceedings.
The property offered as security for advance of the loan was the zamindari rights in Azamgarh zamindari companyprising of the aforesaid 34 villages bearing a land revenue of Rs.
L. Sanghi, Mrs. S. Bagga for the Appellant.
The Collector by his order dated January 18, 1955, after holding an enquiry held that the appellant had taken the taccavi loan in his individual capacity and number as karta of the joint family and accordingly he was personally liable to repay the loan.
23,689.81P as interest.
The state Government naturally did number act upon this gratuitous advice.
247/66.
This resulted in a companypromise decree between the appellant and his brother, the sixth respondent, in Civil Suit No.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for Respondents 1 5.
2371 of 1969.
By his application dated February 25, 1947 the appellant applied for a taccavi loan of Rs.
1,22,000 in the prescribed form for improvement of Mukundpur Farm, to the Director of Agriculture, United Provinces through the Collector, Azamgarh.
They owned an agricultural farm known as Mukundpur Farm situated in Azamgarh zamindari.
The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are as follows The appellant and his brother Shashi Bhushan Gupta the sixth respondent, companystituted a joint Hindu family owning extensive zamindari properties, over several districts in United Provinces including Azamgarh zamindari companyprising of 34 villages.
6 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated May 23, 1968, whereby it upheld a judgment of a Single Judge of that Court dated March 16, 1966, dismissing the applicants writ petition to quash recovery proceedings initiated by the Collector, Azamgarh for realisation of the sum remaining due on account of a taccavi loan under s.7 1 of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883.
K. Bagga for Respondent No.
38,951.8P representing the appellants half share of the companypensation money due ,, and payable to him were adjusted under s.6 e of the Act towards the loan.
On July 15, 1952, the sixth respondent resiled from the terms of companypromise and objected to the recovery proceedings being taken against him on the ground that the loan in question had number been taken by him number had the appellant borrowed it in the capacity as karta of the joint family.
The application was forwarded by the Government to the Collector, Azamgarh for enquiry and report.
It is alleged that by virtue of a family settlement in 1940, the appellant even though younger in age, became the karta of the joint family.
The State Government referred the matter to the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur who by his letter dated October 19, 1956 stated that he was fully in agreement with the Collector that the appellant must be treated as having taken the loan in his individual capacity and proceedings for its recovery had to be taken against the hypothecated property as well as against him personally.
These objections were, however, over ruled by the Sales officer, Azamgarh on October 22, 1952.
16,012.50P. The Government was admittedly number impleaded as a party to, the suit.
