* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 8th December, 2009
+ LPA 227/2006
ARUN KUMAR GOENKA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.S.S.Ray and Ms.Rakhi Ray, Adv.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. A recovery certificate dated 6.6.2002 was sought to
be enforced against the appellant. The certificate in question
has been issued by the Collector, Lucknow, UP. It is addressed
to the Collector New Delhi. The certificate reads as under:-
“Against S/Shri Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd., and O.N.
Goenka, s/o Shri K.N.Goenka, resident of K-13, Hauz
Khas Enclave, New Delhi Rs.58357394/- (+ illegible) is
remaining due for recovery and whose moveable and
immoveable property is situated in your District.
Hence under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act,
the amount may be recovered as arrears of land
revenue and the amount be sent to concerned
LPA No.227/2006 Page 1 of 3
department directly. In this context kindly take the
trouble of making future correspondence with them.”
2. Now, the appellant is neither Premier Vinyl Flooring
Ltd. nor O.N.Goenka, the two persons against whom the
certificate is directed.
3. When sought to be executed against the appellant
by a coercive process, a writ petition was filed alleging that the
certificate, being not directed against the appellant, could not
be executed against him.
4. The writ petition has been dismissed vide impugned
order dated 18.11.2005 on the ground that the certificate has
been issued from Lucknow and thus, this Court would have no
jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
5. It may be noted that in the writ petition, the validity
of the recovery certificate was questioned on various grounds,
but in appeal today, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant
restrict submissions to only one. It is urged that the appellant
does not question the legality and validity of the certificate but
seeks relief pertaining to non execution thereof against the
appellant for the reason, the certificate is not directed against
the appellant. The appellant is not the person named in the
certificate against whom recovery has to be effected.
6. It is trite that to be executed against the properties
of a person or to be enforced by the coercive process of
LPA No.227/2006 Page 2 of 3
imprisonment, a recovery certificate must disclose on its face
that the same has to be executed by attachment of the
property of the persons named in the certificate or by way of
imprisonment (civil) of the person concerned.
7. This is not so on the face of the certificate in
question.
8. The respondents are advised to obtain a proper
certificate after following the process of law, if the respondent
claims any joint and/or several liability of the appellant to clear
the dues in its favour.
9. The appeal stands disposed of directing that the
impugned certificate, contents whereof have been noted in
para 1 above shall not be executed against the appellant
either by way of attachment of his property or by detaining
him in civil prison. It is made clear that it would be open to the
respondent to obtain a proper recovery certificate after
following the process of law and then execute the same as per
law.
10. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
December 08, 2009/mm
LPA No.227/2006 Page 3 of 3