State of M.P. and others Vs. Ku. Preeti Patidar and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

WA, 951 of 2021, Judgment Date: Jan 12, 2022

Law laid down - 

S.89 and 92 of M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993: An amount cannot be directly recovered under Section 92 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam unless the same is determined under Section 89 of the same. This is for the reason that without determining the amount, if the notice under Section 92 is served on a person, the amount cannot be said to be due on the date of its recovery because it has not been quantified, and unless it is quantified, it cannot be said that it belongs to the Panchayat and thus, cannot be recovered under s.92 of Adhiniyam. Indeed it is true that under both the sections, viz., Section 89 and Section 92 of Adhiniyam, the amount due can be recovered as land revenue but in such circumstances, when the amount is determined by the State, it has the discretion to recover it either under Section 89 or Section 92 of the Ahiniyam. Apparently, both the sections are overlapping and if the State seeks any clarification that both of them are distinct and different than the only course available to it is to amend the provisions and bring some uniformity and clarity in the enactment, i.e., the Adhiniyam.

State of M.P. and others Vs. Ku. Preeti Patidar and others