JUDGMENT
Thanikkachalam, J.
1. This revision petition is preferred by the fifth respondent, third party in E.A. No. 107 of 1987 in E.P. No. 144 of 1986 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dindigul, against the order passed in the said E.A. No. 107 of 1987, dated April 11, 1988.
2. The first respondent herein – Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Dindigul, who in one of the decree-holders, has filed the said execution application for payment out, of a sum of Rs. 1,13,000 said to be due by the deceased judgment-debtor. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 are also decree-holders along with the first respondent. The eighth respondent is the subsequent purchaser of the property belonging to the judgment-debtor. A sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was realised after the sale of the property belonging to the judgment-debtor. The said amount was brought to the execution court by virtue of the execution petition filed by some other person. Out of the said amount of Rs. 1,16,000 the first respondent filed the said application for payment out, of a sum of Rs. 1,13,000.
3. After hearing counsel appearing for the decree-holders, judgment-debtor and third party, the execution court ordered payment out, of the sum of Rs. 1,13,000 in favour of the first respondent herein. It is against that order, the present revision petition has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein submitted that for realising the arrears of tax due by way of agricultural income-tax, the mode and time for recovery is prescribed under section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1995 (for Short, “the Act”). According to learned counsel, for the purpose of realising the tax arrears, the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). According to learned counsel, for the purpose of realising the tax arrears, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the first respondent herein, ought to have approached the Collector, who is the executing authority for collection the arrears of tax under section 41 of the Act and it is not open to the first respondent to approach the civil court and ask for payment out of the amount realised and attached by the decree-holders. It was, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the execution court in ordering payment out, of the amount is favour of the first respondent herein is erroneous and the said order is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the first respondent submitted that as per the provisions of section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if there are more than one creditor, it is the duty of the executing court to distribute the amount due to them rateably in the execution proceedings. It is under this provision, the first respondent approached the executing court for collecting the amount due from the judgment-debtor. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that even according to section 41 of the Act, the procedure adopted by the first respondent in approaching the execution court for payment out of the amount standing to the credit of the judgment-debtor is not something different from the established procedure. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Collector is the executing court and he can adopt any mode to collect the amount due under the certificate issued by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer. One such mode is to approach the executing court in which the amount of the assessee is lying, for payment out, of the tax due.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. The fact remains that the judgment-debtor was an agricultural income-tax assessee and his property was brought to sale and a sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was deposited in curt to the credit of the judgment-debtor. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the first respondent herein, filed an application for payment out, of the sum of Rs. 1,13,000 being the tax arrears due by the judgment-debtor. In the matter of recovery of tax arrears, the mode and time for recovery is prescribed under section 42 of the Act. Under section 41, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer should forward a certificate to the District Collector for realising the amount due to the Department. Thereupon, the Collector, who is the executing court, should take steps to collect the amount from the assessee by adopting different methods as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case, the first respondent came to know that a sum of Rs. 1,16,000 belonging to the assessee-judgment-debtor was in court deposit. Under such circumstances, the first respondent approached the executing court for payment out, of the sum of Rs. 1,13,000 way of tax arrears. That was ordered by the executing court. While the Collector was empowered to collect the arrears of tax as land revenue, under the modes prescribed under the Civil Procedure Code, it is not possible to say that the mode adopted in the present case to collect the tax arrears is in violation of either the provisions of the code of Civil Procedure or the provisions contained in section 41 of the Act. Since the tax arrears are to be considered as land revenue, the Government would have a first charge over the amount lying in court deposit to the credit of the assessee-judgment-debtor. Therefore, the order passed in E.A. No. 107 of 1987 ordering payment out in favour of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, the first respondent, cannot be said to be in violation of section 41 of the Act. Accordingly, this court does not want to interfere with the same. Hence, the revision petition shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.