Patna High Court
Manju DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The certificate proceedings and warrant issued under the PDR Act are void and are quashed in toto.
Summary
Manju Devi, widow of the deceased Vijay Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to quash certificate proceedings (Case No. 10/2006-07) and a warrant demanding Rs 3,36,275, alleging that the original debt of Rs 56,500 was owed by her husband who died in 2003. The petitioner argued that initiating recovery against a dead person is void and that the claim is barred by the limitation period. The State contended that the petitioner could have objected under Section 9 of the PDR Act and that, under Section 52, heirs are liable for the debt. The Court held that proceedings against a deceased debtor are void ab initio, the recovery is barred by the 25‑year limitation, and the certificate officer lacked jurisdiction. Relying on earlier decisions (Chandeshwar Prasad Singh v. Muzaffarpur Co‑op Bank and Monakiya Devi v. State of Bihar), the Court quashed the warrant and the entire certificate proceedings, allowing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether certificate proceedings under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act can be initiated against a deceased person
- Whether the limitation period bars recovery of a debt after more than 25 years
- Whether heirs can be held liable without being substituted in the certificate case
- Whether the petitioner must first file objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act before approaching the High Court
Legislation cited
- Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914 — s. 52, 6, 9
Subjects
- certificate proceedings
- public demand recovery act
- limitation period
- deceased debtor
- heir liability
- writ petition
- quashing
- jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10929 of 2025
======================================================
Manju Devi, wife of Late Vijay Kumar resident of village- Gangapur, PS-
Hulasganj, District-Jehanabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Rural Development
department Govt of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Development Commissioner-cum- Chairman District Rural
Development Agency, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.
3. The Certificate officer -cum-Director District Rural Development Agency,
Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.
4. The Director Account Administration and Self Employment -cum-Planning
officer District Rural Development Agency, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (22)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(i) For quashing of the certificate
proceeding vide certificate Case No
10/2006-07 in which warrant has been
issued vide memo No 216 dated 04-04-2025
and it has been directed to deposit Rs
3,36,275.00 against amount of Rs.
56.500/which was given to Vijay Kumar
husband of the petitioner who died on 12-03-
2003.
(ii) For direction the respondents
for not taking any coercive action against
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
2/7
the petitioner in the light of certificate case
No 10/2006-07 for recovery of said amount
because the certificate debt collector has
been died in the year 2003 and the petitioner
and her family members have no knowledge
about the alleged dues amount.”
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that initiation of the certificate proceedings
vide Certificate Case No. 10/2006-07 against the petitioner
herein and also the issuance of the warrant vide Memo No. 216
dated 04.04.2025 wherein the petitioner has been directed to
deposit an amount of Rs. 3,36,275/- is without jurisdiction and
contrary to the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Public
Demand Recovery Act, 1914 (herein after referred to as ‘the
PDR Act’). Learned counsel submits that by the time the
certificate case was initiated against the husband of the
petitioner, namely, late Vijay Kumar, the husband of the
petitioner has died in the year 2003 itself, therefore, the
initiation of the certificate case against a dead person is void ab
initio and non-est in the eye of law. Further, it is stated that the
original amount recoverable from the husband of the petitioner
is only Rs. 56,500/- but the respondent-authorities are trying to
recover an amount of Rs. 3,36,275/- from the petitioner who is
not even a party to the certificate case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
3/7
Judgment of this Hon’ble Court dated 08.02.2008 passed in
CWJC No. 14653 of 2004 in the case of Chandeshwar Prasad
Singh @ Chandeshwar Singh Versus Muzaffarpur Central
Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another reported in (2008) 4
PLJR 191 and also relied on the Judgment of this Hon’ble
Court dated 01.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 22205 of 2013 in
the case of Most. Monakiya Devi v. The State of Bihar and
Ors.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that
initiation of the certificate proceedings against a dead person is
totally impermissible under law. Further, it is stated that the
claim itself is barred by law of limitation as the respondent-
authorities have taken their own sweet time in initiating the
proceedings, that to against a dead person. Learned counsel has,
therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to allow the present writ
petition and set aside the impugned demand notice and also the
warrant vide Memo No. 216 dated 04.04.2025 and quash the
entire certificate proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has
stated that the petitioner is having a remedy of filing her
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
4/7
objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act before the Certificate
Officer and the same shall be considered in accordance with law
and necessary final orders will be passed. However, the
petitioner without filing her objections has straightaway
approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the present CWJC and
the same is not permissible. Further, it is stated that the husband
of the petitioner, namely, late Vijay Kumar was put on notice to
deposit the liability amount of Rs. 56,500/- but the said Vijay
Kumar failed to deposit the same. Further, it is stated that the
recovery proceedings against the said Vijay Kumar were
initiated in the month of April, 1985 and though notices were
served on the Vijay Kumar, he failed to pay the due amount and,
thereafter, the authority has initiated the certificate proceedings.
Learned counsel has stated that the question of limitation does
not arise as the process of recovery of the amount has been
continuing right from the period when the said Vijay Kumar was
alive and the petitioner being the legal heir of the said Vijay
Kumar is bound to pay the outstanding due amounts. Learned
counsel has stated that as per Section 52 of the PDR Act, the
authorities are well within their rights to proceed against the
petitioner herein and the other legal heirs of the late Vijay
Kumar. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
5/7
Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
7. Admittedly, in the present writ petition the facts are
not in dispute, the fact that the said Vijay Kumar who is the
husband of the petitioner was due an amount of Rs. 56,500/- is
not disputed. That the cause of action for initiating the
certificate proceedings started in the month of April 1985 and
the said Vijay Kumar died in the month of March, 2003. The
certificate case has been initiated in the year 2006-07 vide
Certificate Case No. 10/2006-07. It is settled law that any
proceedings against the dead person are void ab initio, non-est
in the eye of law and without jurisdiction.
8. This Hon’ble Court in the case of Chandeshwar
Prasad Singh @ Chandeshwar Singh Versus Muzaffarpur
Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another reported in
(2008) 4 PLJR 191 has held as under:-
“11. Firstly, where the law
restricts the remedy to a Court of law, then it
should not be so interpreted that in another
proceeding solely for the purpose of
recovery it can be permitted; that would be
circumventing the law. If the claim is not
enforceable in Civil Court the bar cannot be
circumvented by resorting to Public Demand
Recovery Act. Therefore, this part of the
submission cannot be accepted. Secondly, it
is in view of this principle that section 6 of
the Public Demand Recovery Act, as quoted
above, says that the Certificate Officer, if he
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
6/7
is satisfied that the demand is recoverable
and the recovery is not barred by law, he can
proceed. Here, recovery of money due after
25 years is barred by law of limitation.
Therefore, in terms of section 6, the law bars
recovery and thus the Certificate Officer had
no jurisdiction to proceed in the mater once
he found so if one refers to the certificate as
appended to the writ petition as issued by the
Certificate Officer, one would find that he
had to certify that the recovery was not
barred, he has so certified without even
bothering to look or enquire into the very
basic fact. In that view of the matter, in the
facts of this case, which are not in dispute,
the recovery being barred by law, the
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.
The proceedings being wholly without
jurisdiction, the same are quashed in toto.
9. Further in the case of Most. Monakiya Devi v. The
State of Bihar and Ors. passed in CWJC No. 22205 of 2013
dated 01.10.2018 has held as under:-
“6. Having heard the parties and
on consideration of the materials on record,
this Court finds considerable merit in the
writ petition. A bare perusal of the impugned
notice dated 12.09.2013 issued by the
Certificate Officer-cum-SDO, Dumraon,
Buxar as well as the requisition dated
04.08.2011 issued under Section 5 of the
PDR Act discloses that these have been
issued after 11.09.2010, when the husband of
the petitioner died. As such, the entire
proceedings are rendered illegal and a
nullity.”
10. Admittedly even in this case, the initiation of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10929 of 2025 dt.01-07-2026
7/7
certificate case against the dead person and issuance of warrant
by the respondent-authorities to the petitioner seeking recovery
of the amount of Rs. 3,36,275/- is without jurisdiction and
beyond the period of limitation. Further, it is to be noted that the
petitioner has not been substituted in the Certificate Case No.
10/2006-07 at any point of time till date.
11. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances and also the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court
in the above mentioned cases, the warrant vide Memo No. 216
dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Certificate Officer i.e.
Respondent No. 3 herein and the entire certificate proceedings
initiated against the dead person and also against the petitioner
herein and other legal heirs of late Vijay Kumar in the certificate
case bearing Certificate Case No. 10/2006-07 are hereby
quashed.
12. With the above observations, the present writ
petition stands allowed to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
shakir/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.07.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.