Roshan Lal vs Kishan Lal and Another

J.V. Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Karnal, dated June 13. 1988, whereby the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, dated January 4, 1988. ordering the auctioning of the property of the Judgment-debtor was maintained.

The authority under the payment of Wages Act,--vide order dated April 30, 1986. adjudged the amount of Rs. 5,200 payable by Ram Dia in favour of Kishan Lal. Kishan Lal applied to the authority alleging that the said Ram Dia has refused to make the payment of the amount in question. Consequently, the authority issued the certificate u/s 8.15(5) of payment of Wages Act and transmitted the case to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal. for realization of the amount from Ram Dia as if it were fine imposed by that Court. For realisation of the said amount the land in the name of Roshan, minor son of Ram Dia was attached. Roshan Lal filed an application under Order 21 Rules 58 and 59, Code of Civil Procedure, praying for releasing of the property attached alleging that the land was owned and possessed by him and not his father Ram Dia. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that Ram Dia was the owner of the property and thus ordered the auction of the property attached. In appeal, the learned District Judge maintained the said order.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not warranted u/s 421 of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the learned Counsel, thereunder attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender could be ordered but not of any immovable property. For attachment of the immovable property. the Court will issue a warrant to the Collector of the District authorising him to realise the amount as arrear of land revenue from the movable or immovable property or both, of the offender /defaulter. Thus, argued the learned Counsel, the procedure adopted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was not warranted.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not competent for attachment or sale of any immovable property u/s 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For that purpose he could issue a warrant to the Collector of the District as provided therein.

Conseauently. this revision petition succeeds: the impugned orders are set aside. The parties have been directed to appear on September 4, 1989, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Karnal. He will issue the necessary warrants to the Collector of the District authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both of the offender/defaulter i.e. Ram Dia as provided u/s 421 Code of Criminal Procedure