STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER versus DINA NATH

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 844 · Decided: 21-11-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
' c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
44 
' . 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER 
.. 
v . 
• 
DINA'NATH 
•. 
November 21, 1983 
[A.P. SEN AND D.P. MADON, JJ.) 
Code. of Civil ProcedureJ908, Ss. 2 (2) a.nd 60(/) (ccc). 
.ReSider.tial hous.e exe111p't-fro1n attachment and sale in execution (If eourt 
deCree-Collecor . .whethef compete1't to order attach1ne11t and sale 'of residential 
hnuS~ un~er Land Revenue Recovery. Act: . 
. :Punjab Land RevcnUe Act 1887." ·Liquor' v"endor-Fail~re ·to pay licence 
fee-'-Recovery initiated ·under Land Revenue Recoi•erj Act~Co/!ector. if' could 
o;der attacht11f!nt and sa/e.ofresid entiQ/ l10Use. 
The resp-Ondent~a liquor vending licensee defaulted to pay license fee 
inspit~ of rcpeatCd rem~ndears. Rec:oier.Y ProCeedings under t!1e Punjab ··Land 
, ReVenue Act, 1887 were initiated aga_inst·him .. The Collector issued a prcicla-
mation prohibiting the tr·ansfer or CreatiQn ·or a charge by· the respondent on his 
'half sha.re in an immoveable property, consistiOg of a' plot~af land· and a buil-
ding thereon, and notified th~ p~operty for ·auction. 
The respondent, filed a suit for pern1al).ent injunctiOn restraining the 
apjJellarit-State. a"nd the Collector from_ auctioning his half share, oil the iround .·• 
that the building was being used by hi1n for his -1esidence, and he had no other 
residential house, an.d that therefore the half share of the re'sidcntial _h.ouse Was· 
excrript from attachrrient under .clause (ccc) of the proviso to sub-section ( J) of 
seCtion 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.. The "trial court disn1issed the 
. . 
. 
suit and this order was con~rmed in appeal by the District.Judge. 
Allowing the respondent's second appeal, the High Court upheld his 
contention, and issued a: pCrmanent i"njunction only with' regard to that portion. 
. j)f thC? building in which he was r~siding. 
· 
HELD : (1) The High Court was wrong .·both in its criticism of the 
sub.ordinate court& ari~ ~n allowiri~ the r~sf>ondent·s. secohd a'ppeal. [847 EJ 
•• 
·' 
' 
~ 
I ., 
J
PUNJAB v. DINA NATH (Madon, J.) 
845 
. 
2. :section 60 of the COde. has nO 
~pplication to attachfficn't and sale . 
. in" any proceedings othei than in execution.pf a decree of a civil court. It applies · 
· A 
.only to Cxecution of a decree of civil court: It 4~clares what, prop-er'ties are 
Iiablc ·ta be attached-and Sold hi execution of such. a ·decree and the proviso to 
sub-acctfon (1) of section 60 sets out th~ pro~erti~ whiCh arc ~at tiahlc.to such 
-attachment or sale. The expression '•such attachment or sale" in the proviso 
refers to the attachment <ind sale mentioned in sub.:.section (1) Of secti911 60, that 
is to attachment and sale i,n exe~Ution of a decrCe of a civil.court. 
The section 
does n_ot apply to an attachmen~ and Sale under any other statute. unless made 
B. 
expressly applicable thereto. [84.7 H; 848. A,B] 
In the instant case· th.e auaChment and the auction sale were npt in 
execution ·of any decree of a civil coUrt but Were iri purs1,1ance of an order 
·made by an· officer authorised 
ii.dopt proceedings under the. Punjab 
Land.Revenue Ac~. 1887 for recovery of rCven\J;e due to the State.· There is no 
C 
provision in this Act which m·akes the provisions of section 60 of the Code 
applicable to attachment and sale for ~eco~ery of reVenuC under. the said Act. 
[848 D-E] 
Civil Appeal No. 7494 · of 
Appeal by Special :leave from the Judg!llent and· Order dated 
the 6th May, 1981 of the Punjab~ Haryana. High Court in R-.S.A. 
No. 2944 of 19.80. 
. 
S.K. Bagga for the Appellants. 
The· Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MADoN, J. This appeal by speci~l leave from. the Judgment and 
and Dec,ree in Second Appeal of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court 'involves the determination of the question whether section 60 · 
of the Code of Civil Procedure; 1908, applies to an attachment and 
sale in revenue recovery proceedings adopted under the Punjab Land 
Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as ''the' said Act"). 
. 
.. 
. 
. 
. 
The facts which have given rise .io this question are ·that 'Dina 
Nath the Respondent along .with one Gora Lal and Sat Pal, had been 
granted a liquor vending licence for the year 1968-69 by the Excise . 
· ·and T.axation Department of the'Sta(e of Punjab, Patiala. Division," 
. in respect. of which they had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,38,000 as· licence 
fee. 
The· liceitcees paid a sum of Rs. 86,450, leavfog the balance 
uilP,ai.d in spite of repeated reminders. Ultimately,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.