Holding

The court may allow multiple recovery modes only after ascertaining that the debt has not been fully satisfied; otherwise, sale of additional property is barred.

Summary

Shyam Singh obtained a Rs 34,000 loan from the State Bank of India for a tractor, mortgaging 22 acres of land. After defaulting, the bank invoked Section 10‑B of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and the Tehsildar attached the tractor, whose estimated value exceeded the debt. Later, under Section 11‑A of the same Act and Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the authorities initiated proceedings to sell the mortgaged land. The appellant argued that the debt was already satisfied by the tractor’s attachment and that simultaneous proceedings were impermissible. The Supreme Court held that while a creditor may pursue different modes of recovery, the court must exercise discretion and ensure that the debt is not already satisfied before allowing sale of additional property. The respondents were directed to determine the amount recovered from the tractor and could only proceed with the land sale if the debt remained unpaid. The appeal was allowed in part.

Issues considered

Whether the creditor can initiate simultaneous recovery proceedings under Sections 10‑B, 11 and 11‑A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 for the same debt.
Whether attachment and sale of the tractor extinguishes the appellant's liability to the bank.
Whether the court must restrain the sale of mortgaged land when the movable property attached may already satisfy the debt.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedures. 51, s. Order 21 Rule 21, s. Order 21 Rule 30
Limitation Act, 1963
U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973s. 10-B, s. 11, s. 11-A
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 279

Subjects

agricultural creditloan recoverysimultaneous executionattachment of movable propertysale of immovable propertySection 10-BSection 11Section 11-ASection 279court discretiondebtor liability

Judgment

A SHYAM SINGH
v.
COLLECTOR, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, U.P., AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 25, 1992

B [M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]

U.P. Agricultural Credit Ac~ 1973 :

Sections 10-B, 11 and 1JA-Recovery of debt due-Simultaneous
C proceedings for attachment/sale of propeTty of borrowe,._.j/alue of movable
propeTty sufficient to satisfy the amount due-Disposal of immovable proper-
ly-Not allowing oj-{)iscretion of Courts.

The appellant took a loan of Rs. 34,000 from a Bank for pul'chase of
a tractor by mortgaging 22 acres of land belonging to him. The tl'actor so
D purchased had been hypothecated with the Bank. The appellant defaulted
in making payment of the instalments. The Bank approached the Tehsildar
for recovery of the outstanding amount in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by S.10-B of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The Tehsil-
dar initiated recovery proceedings, attached the tractor and took it away
E from the custody of the appellant. The estimated value of the tractor
mentioned in the recovery proceedings was more than the total amount
due.

Subsequently a proceeding was initiated under Section 11-A of the
U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 for recovery of the said amount and a
F notice was issued under Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellant objected stating that first the sale
proceeds of tractor be acljusted and steps for sale of agricultural lands be
taken up only thereafter. He also pointed out that the authorities themsel-
ves fixed the estimated value or the tractor at an amount higher than the
G amount due to the Bank. Since this plea was rejected by the Revenue
authorities, the appellant approached the High Court by way or a Writ
Application for quashing the proceedings Initiated by the respondents for
sale of the agricultural lands.

The High Court having dismissed the Writ Application the appellant.
H preferred the present Appeal.
862
SHYAMSINGH v. COLLECTOR 863

On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that lo view of the fact A
that admittedly the tractor in question was attached and removed from
the custody of the appellant by the Tebsildar lo exercise of the power
under section 10-B of the Act, It should be deemed that the appellant bas
been absolved from bis liability to- pay the amount lo question to the Bank.

Allowing the appeal, Ibis Court, B

HELD : 1. Courts have to aid the creditor In realising the dues from
the debtor. But at the same time in the special facts and circumstances of
a particular case, the Court can direct the decree-bolder or the creditor
not to put any property on sale if by the mode already opted by the C
decree-bolder or the creditor, the amount due bas been realised or likely
to be realised without any further delay. (873-C)

The Padrauma Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. The Land Reforms
Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1969 SC 897, relied on.
D
Anadila/ v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1936 All. 495; Mono Mohan v. Upendra
Mohan, AIR 1935 Calcutta 127; Subramania Cheltiar v. A. Ponnuswami
Cheltiar, AIR 1957 Madras 777 and Uma Kanta Baneljee v. Ranwick and
Co. Ltd., AIR 1953 Calcutta 717, approved.

2.1. Whatever may be said in connection with an execution proceeding E
under the provisions of the Code of CMI Procedure the analogy may not be
apposite where the recovery proceedings are statutory In natore and the
creditor Is Itself the State or as here an authority within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Coostltotlon. The tractor in question was seized and
removed lo accordance with a statutory provision. 1be right of the Bank to F
follow one or the other modes, separately or simoltaneously, for the realisa-
tion of the dues bas to be recognised. Bot that right does not extend to the
extent of selling the different movable or Immovable properties of the debtor
onder different provisions and tbroogb dlffernt procedures without ascer-
taining whether the amooot doe bas already been realised by sale of the
property already attached in the proceeding which were initiated for the G
purpose. The Court, should, on the facts and circumstances of a particular
case, decide as to whether simultaneous proceedings should be permitted
against the debtor for realisation of the same amount. While exercising such
discretion, Court bas to be conscious of the fact that the debtors are general-
ly interested In delaying the realisation of the debts. (874 C-F] H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 2.2. In the instant case, the tractor which had been pledged with the
Bank was admittedly attached and was taken into custody by the Tehslldar
in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section lO·B of the U.P.
Agrkultural Credit Act, 1973. The recovery proceedings of the Tehslldar
themselves show that on that day the value of the tractor was more than
B the total amount due. Steps for sale of the tractor bad admittedly been
taken. What happened to the proceedings initiated under section 10-B of
the Act and to the tractor of the appellant is not known. The respondents
are directed to ascertain the amount which has been recovered or shall be
deemed to have been recovered from the tractor, towards the dues. It Is
only if the total amount of the dues of the Bank has not been realised, the
C respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the sale of the lands which
had been mortgaged with the Bank in accordance with the provisions of
section ll·A of the Act read with section 279(1) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The lands which bad been mortgaged
shall be deemed to be under attachment in view of the steps already taken
D under section 279(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act. (873 D-E; 874 G·H; 875-A]

Jai lnder Bahadur Singh v. Brij lndar Kuar, AIR 1929 Oudb 231; Orr
v. Muthia Chetti, (1894) 17 Mad. 501; Muthia Chetti v. Orr, (1897) 20 Mad.
224 (F.B.) and Mt. Brij lndar Kuar v. Thakur Jai lndar Bahadur Singh, AIR
E 1932 Privy Council 191, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3966 of
1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.2.1990 of the Allahabad
F High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2155 of 1983.

Ravindra Kumar for the Appellant.

Shanti Swarup Sharma for the Respondenis.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SINGH, J. Special leave granted.

This appeal is against an order passed by the High Court dismissing
the Writ Application filed on behalf of the appellant for quashing the
H proceedings initiated by the respondents for sale of 22 acres of land which

••
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH. J.) 865

had been mortgaged in favour of the State Bank of India (hereinafter A
referred to as 'the Bank') in connection with a loan amounting to Rs. 34,000
advanced to the appellant in the year 1972 for purchase of a tractor. The
tractor so purchased had been hypothecated with the Bank.

On various dates the appellant paid Rs. 11,500 towards the instal-
ments and the interest in respect of the aforesaid loan. In July, 1977, the B
Bank approached the concerned Tehsildar for recovery of Rs. 44,872.60
the outstanding amount till that date in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by section 10-B of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The
Tehsildar initiated recovery proceedings and pursuant to an order passed
by him on 16.12.1977, the aforesaid tractor was attached and was taken C
away from the custody of the appeallant on 26.12.1977. From the recovery
proceeding of Tehsildar it appeared that interest upto 7th July, 1977 had
been recovered and the total amount due was Rs. 40, 793.29. In the column
meant for estimated value for the tractor, it was mentioned as Rs.
46,146.36. In other words the estimated value of the tractor mentioned in D
the recovery proceedings was more than the total amount due.

On or about 24th July, 1981, a proceeding was initiated under section
11-A of the aforesaid Act for recovery of the same amount and a notice
was issued under section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 giving the details of 22 acres of the lands which were E
going to be sold for non-payment of the amount advanced along with
interest. This was objected to on behalf of the appellant saying that first
the sale proceeds of the tractor be adjusted and steps for sale of the
agricultural land be taken only thereafter. It was pointed out on behalf of
the appellant to the authorities concerned that they themselves had fixed F
the estimated value of the tractor on 7th July, 1977 to be Rs. 46,146.36 and
had shown the total amount payable by the appellant at Rs. 44,872.60. This
amount of Rs. 44,872.60 included Rs.4,079.33 as the expenses of recovery
at the rate of 10%. The amount which was actually payable was Rs.
40,793.29 only. This plea was rejected by the Revenue Authorities as well
as by the High Court. G

The U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act') has been enacted making "provisions to facilitate adequate flow
of credit for agricultural production and development through Banks and
other institutional credit agencies and for matters connected therewith or H
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1992] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A incidental thereto". The definition of "agricultural purpose" in section
2(a)(ii) includes the acquisition of implements and machinery in connec-
tion with any such activities and shall include purchase of a tractor. The
definition of Bank shall include the respondent-Bank. The financial assis-
tance means "assistance by way of loan, advance for aforesaid agricultural
purposes''. Chapter III contains the provisions regarding charges and
B mortgages in favour of Banks and their priorities. Chapter IV provides the
procedures for recovery of the dues by the Bank. Sections 10-B, 11 and
11-A are relevant.

Section 10-B. Distraint and sale of produce and movables:-
c (!) Where any sum in respect of any financial assistance
granted to an agriculturist remains unpaid on the date on
which it falls due, the bank granting the financial assis-
tance may apply to the Tahsildar having jurisdiction for
the recovery of the sum due, together with expenses of
recovery, by distraint and sale of the movable property or
D the crop or other produce charged in favour of the bank.

(2) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall
apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1),
as if such application were a suit in a civil court for sale
E of the movable property for enforcing recovery of the sum
referred to in that sub-section.

(3) On receipt of an application under sub-section (1),
the Tahsildar or any other official authorised by him may,
not withstanding anything contained in any other law for
F the time being in force, take action in the manner
prescribed for purposes of distraining and selling the
property referred to in that sub-section.

(4) Any sum so recovered shall be transferred to the
bank after deducting t~e expenses of recovery and satis-
G fying the Government dues or other prior charge, if any.

Section 11. Recovery of dues of a bank through a prescribed
mllhority. - (1) Notwithstanding contained in any law
for the time being in force, an officer specified by the
H State Government by notification in the Gazette
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH, J.] 867

(hereinafter referred to as the prescribed authority) A
may, on the application of a bank by order, direct that
any amount due to the bank on account of financial
assistance given to an agriculturist be paid by the sale
of the land or any interest therein or other immovable
property which is charged or mortgaged for the pay-
B
ment of such amount :

Provided that no order of sale shall be made under
this sub-section unless the agriculturist has been served
with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him
to pay the amount due. c
(1-A) The provision of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall
apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1),
as if such application where a suit in civil court for sale
of the land or interest therein or other immovable proper-
D
ty for enforcing recovery of the sum referred .to in that
sub-section.

(2) An order passed by the prescribed authority shall,
subject to the result of appeal under Section 12, be final
and be binding on the parties. E

(3) Every order passed by the prescribed authority in
term of sub-section (1) or by the appellate authority under
Section 12 shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court
and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of F
such court by the civil court having jurisdiction.

Section 11-A. Recovery in the case ofpersonal security.- (1)
Where any amount of financial assistance is granted
by a bank to an agriculturist and the agriculturist fails
to pay the amount together with interest on the due G
date, then without prejudice to the provisions of Sec-
tions 10-B and ll, the local principal officer of the
bank, by whatevername called may forward to the
Collector a certificate in the manner prescribed,
specifying the amount due from the agriculturist. H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A {2) The certificate referred to in sub-section (1) may
be forwarded to Collector within three years from the date
when the amount specified in the certificate fell due.

(3) On receipt of the certificate, the collector shall
proceed to recover from the agriculturist, the amount
B specified therein togather with expenses of recovery, as
arrears of land revenue, and the amolint due to the bank
shall ~e paid after deducting the expenses of recovery and
satisfying any Government dues or other prior charges, if
any.
c Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the
expression 'Collector' mean the Collector of the district
in which the agriculturist ordinarily resides or carries on
the a~tivities referred to in clause (a) of Section 2 or where
any movable or immovable property of the agriculturist is
D situate, and includes any officer, authorised by him in that
behalf.

From a plain reading of the three sections, 10-B, 11 and 11-A, it
appears that they prescribe three procedures for recovery of the loan
E advanced to an agriculturist. Section 10-B will be applicable when steps are
taken for sale of any movable property or agricultural produce. Section 11
prescribes the procedure for sale of land or any interest therein or in any
other immovable property which had been charged or mortgaged for
payment of the amount advanced. So far as section 11-A is concerned, it
contains a special provision "without prejudice to the provisions of sections
F 10-B and 11" under which the Bank may forward to the Collector a
certificate in the manner prescribed specifying the amount due from the
agriculturist. Thereafter the Collector has to proceed to recover from the
agriculturist the amount so specified as arrears of Land Revenue.

G As the amount due is to be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue,
Revenue Authorities have to proceed in accordance with section 279 of the
aforesaid U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The relevant
part of section 279 is as follows :-

"279(1). An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by
H any one or more of the following processes :
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH, J.] 869

(a) by serving a writ of demand or a citation to appear on A
any defaulter,

(b) by arrest and detention of his person,

(c) by attachment and sale of his moveable property
including produce, B

(d) by. attachment of the holding in respect of which the
arrear is due,

(e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the
arrear is due, c
(I) by attachment and sale of other immovable property
of the defaulter, and

(g) by appointing a receiver of any property, moveable or
immovable of the defaulter."
D

In seciton 279, for realisation of the amount in question, different
modes have been prescribed. Although framers of the Act have prescribed
different modes for recovery of the dues, the question which has to be
answered is as to whether it is open to the Bank (i) to proceed under E
section 10-B of the Act for attachment and sale of the moveable property
pledged with the Bank; (ii) to follow the procedure for recovery under
section 11 by filing an application before the prescribed authority for sale
of the lands which have been mortgaged in connection with the financial
assistance; and at the same time (iii) to take steps under section 11-A
F
aforesaid agai.ist the agriculturist concerned by forwarding to the Collector
a certificate in the manner prescribed, attracting the provisions of section
279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for realisation
of the same amount. Once section 279 becomes applicable not only any
other moveable property but even any other immovable property of the
agriculturist, which has been mortgaged, can be sold and the agriculturist G
can also be arrested and kept in detention.

All these different modes for realisation of the dues of the Bank
under the provisions of the Act, pose a question as to whether the right to
realise the amount due by the Bank under three different provisions and H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A procedures is so unfettered, unrestricted and absolute in nature that it is
open to the Bank to pursue the agriculturist to whom the financial assis-
tance had been given, by initiating simultaneous proceedings.

From time to time this question has been examined in connection
with section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
B
'the Code'). Section 51 of the Code provides that, subject to such condi-
tions and limitations as may be prescribed, on application of the decree-
holder the Court may order execution of the decree by different modes
mentioned in the said section including -

c (a) by delivery of any property specifically decreed;

(b) by attachment and sale or by sale without attachment
of any property; and

(c) by arrest and detention in prison for such period not
D exceeding the period specified in section 58, where
arrest and detention is permissible under that section.

It has been said the difficulties of a litigant "begin when he has
obtained a decree". It is a matter of common knowledge that far too many
E obstacles are placed in the way of a decree-holder who seeks to execute
his decree against the property of the judgment-debtor. Perhaps because
of that there is no statutory provision against a number of execution
proceeding continuing concurrently. Section 51 of the Code gives an option
to the creditor, of enforcing the decree either against the person or the
F property of the debtor; and nowhere it has been laid down that execution
against the person of the debtor shall not be allowed unless and until the
decree-holder has exhausted his remedy against the property. Order 21,
Rule 30 of the Code provides that "every decree for payment of money,
including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some
other relief, may be executed by the detention in the civil prison of the
G Judgment-debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by
both".

In the case of The Padrauma Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. The
Land Refonns Commissioner, U.P., AIR 1969 SC 897, in connection with
H realisaticm of the Income Tax dues, sugar-cane cess and the price of the
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH, J.] 871

sugar-cane, treating them as arrears of Land Revenue, in accordance with A
the procedure prescribed by section 279 of U .P. Zmindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act aforesid itself, it was said by this Court :-

"The power exercisable by the Collector in recovering
arrears of income-tax which are recoverable as arrears of
land revenue are, it is clear, not restricted to the Land
B
Revenue Code: the Collector is entitled to exercise all the
powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of recovery of an
amount due under a decree under the Code of Civil
Procedure, and the Code of Civil Procedure imposes no
obligation to recover the dues by sale of movables or by c
arrest and detention of the defaulter before immovable
property may be attached ..................................................... ..
By virtue of Order 21, Rule 30 of the Code of Civil
Procedure simultaneous execution both against the
property and person of the judgment-debtor is allowed."
D
But still the discretion in the Court to order simultaneous execution must
be exercised in a judicial manner. Order 21, Rule 21 of the Code itself
provides that "the Court may, in its discretion, refuse execution at the same
time against the person and property of the judgment-debtor."
E
While upholding the power of the Court to execute a decree for
payment of money by the detention in the civil prison of the judgment-debt-
or, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by both, in the case
of The Padrauma Raj Krishna Sugar Works Ltd. v. The Land Reforms
Commissioner, U.P., (supra), itself it was said by this Court :- F
"It was urged in the alternative that after selling the
immovable property which realized more than Rs.
23,50,000 the Collector should not have sold the movable
property, for the claim for which the properties of the
Company were put up for sale was only Rs. 8,38,176-13-0. G
At first blush there is force in this argument. Why the
Collector thought it necessary to sell the movables after
the immovable property was knocked down to the
Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., for Rs. 23,50,000 was never
explained. After the immovable property belonging to the H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A Company was knocked down to the purchasers for an
amount of Rs. 23,50,000 it was apparently not necessary
to hold the auction for sale of moveables valued at Rs.
7,64,817 and to accept a bid of only Rs. 2,75,000."

It was pointed out by Sulaiman, CJ., in a Full Bench judgment in the case
B of Anadilal v. Ram Sarup, AIR 1936 All. 495 .

...........'all the various modes mentioned in S.51 are not
open to an executing Court in every case; it is to be guided
by the procedure laid down in the schedule, and must
c resort to the method appropriate to each case."

In the case of Mono Mohan v. Upendro Mohan, AIR 1935 Calcutta
127, it was said :

"It is quite true that in S. 51 of the Code the remedies
D open to a judgment-creditor are detailed in the five
clauses (a) to (e) to that section and it is also true that
where the holder of a decree for money comes before the
Court and wants process against the person of ajudgrnent-
debtor for his arrest, and if there are no special cir-
cumstances present, it is not open to the Court to say that
E the decree-holder must proceed against the properties of
the judgment-debtor before applying for warrant of arrest
against him. .................................................................................
But we are clearly of opinion that there may be circurnsllm-
ces present in a case which would not only justify a refusal
F to allow the decree-holder to have process for the arrest and
detention of the judgment-debtor, but we are prepared to
go further and say that there may be circumstances which
would demand such a refusal."

Same view was reiterated in the case of A.K Subramania Chettiar v.
G A. Po1111uswami Chettiar, AIR 1957 Madras 777, saying :

"the Court has a discretion under Order XX!, rule 21
C.P.C., to refuse simultaneous execution and to allow the
decree-holder to avail himself of only one mode of execu-
H tion at a time."
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH, J.] 873

In the case of Uma Kanta Banerjee v. Renwick and Co. Ltd., AIR A
1953 Calcutta 717, also it was said:

"power of the decree-holder is, however, subject to the exercise by
the Court of a judicial discretion vested in it under 0. 21, R.21 of the
Code."
B
It is true that the proverbial laws delay is more frequently and
strikingly exemplified in execution proceedings than even in the initial
dispute, and as such, courts have to aid the creditor in realising the dues
fr.om the debtor. But at the same time in the special facts and circumstan-
ces of a particular case, the Court can direct the decree-holder or the C
creditor not to put any property on sale if by the mode already opted by
the decree-holder or the creditor, the amount due has been realised or
likely to be realised without any further delay.

. The tractor which had been pledged with the Bank was admittedly D
attached and was taken in custody by the Tehsildar in accordance wit!1 the
procedure prescribed by section 10-B of the Act. The recovery proceedings
of the Tehsildar themselves show that on that day the value of the tractor
was more than the total amount due. Neither before the High Court nor
before this Court it has been disclosed as to what happened to the tractor E
which had been attached and removed from the custody of the appellant
in exercise of the power conferred on the respondents by section 10-B and
as to whether the amount recovered has been transferred to the Bank as
required by section 10-B(4) of the Act.

On behalf of the appellant it was urged that in view of the fact that F
it is an admitted position that the tractor in question was attached and
removed from the custody of the appellant by the Tehsildar in exercise of
the power under section 10-B of the Act, it shall be deemed that the
appellant has been absolved from his liability to pay the amount in question
to the Bank. Reliance in this connection was placed on a Full Bench G
Judgment in the case of Jai Inder Balladur Singh v. Brij Indar Kuar, AIR
1929 Oudh 231, where it was held that if the property which came into the
hands of a receiver appointed by the Court and which was to be sold by
him for the purpose of making payments to the decree-holder had been
misappropriated by him, the loss must be borne by the decree-holder and H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l!992J SUPP. I S.C.R.

A the judgment-debtor is absolved of the liability to pay to the decree-holder.
In that connection reference was also made to the judgment of the Madras
High Court in the case of O" v. Muthia Chetti, (1894) 17 Mad. 501, as well
as the Judgment of the Appellate Court of the same case Muthia Chetti v.
Orr, (1897) 20 Mad. 224 (F.B.). But that view did not find favour with the
B Privy Council in the case of Mt. Brij lndar Kuar v. 17iakur lai lndar Bahadur
Singh, AIR 1932 Privy Council 191. The judgment of the Full Bench of the
Oudh Court was reversed saying that decree had created a charge, and
payment to receiver was at judgment- debtor's risk, as such decree-holder
can enforce the charge.

c Whatever may be said in connection with an execution proceeding
under the provisions of the said 'Code', according to us, the analogy may
not be apposite where the recovery proceedings are statut )fy in nature and
the creditor is itself the State or as here an authority within the meaning
of Article 12 of the Constitution. The tractor in question was seized and
D removed in accordance with a statutory provision. The right of the Bank
to follow one or the other modes, separately or simultaneously, for the
realisation of the dues has to be recognised. But that right does not extend
to the extent of selling the different movable or immovable properties of
the debtor under different provisions and through different procedures
E without ascertaining whether the amount due has already been realised by
sale of the property already attached in the proceeding which were initiated
for the purpose. The Court should on the facts and circumstances of a
particular case, decide as to whether simultaneous proceedings should be
permitted against the debtor for realisation of the same amount. It is true
while exercising such discretion, Court has to be conscious of the fact that
F the debtors are generally interested in delaying the realisation of the debts.

However, so far as the present case is concerned, steps for sale of
the tractor had admittedly been taken. What happened to the proceedings
initiated under section to-B of the Act and to the tractor of the appellant
G is not known. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the
respondents are directed to ascertain the amount which has been
recovered or shall be deemed to have been recovered from the tractor,
towards the dues. It is only if the total amount of the dues of the Bank has
not been realised, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the
H sale of the lands which had been mortgaged with the Bank in accordance
SHYAM SINGH v. COLLECTOR [N.P. SINGH, J.] 875

with the provisions of section 11-A of the Act read with section 279(1) of A
the U .P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Lands which
had been mortgaged shall be deemed to be under attachment in' view of
the steps already taken under section 279(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Aboli-
.tion and Land Reforms Act. In the fact~ and circumstances of the case
there shall be no order as to costs.
B
G.N. Appeal allowed.