Certificate Officer must consider Section 9 objections and arbitral awards before deciding recovery under Section 10.

The petitioner challenged orders dated 3 July 2017 and 18 August 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms-cum-Certificate Officer, Buxar, in Certificate Case No. 18/2016-17, directing recovery of ₹1,89,60,339.69 with 18% interest.

He also challenged the distress warrant issued on 26 August 2019 and sought protection against coercive recovery proceedings.

During the hearing, the petitioner submitted that he had not yet filed objections under Section 9 of the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (“PDR Act”), but intended to rely upon an arbitral award before the Certificate Officer.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to file objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act against the certificate proceedings and the demand raised against him.

Whether the Certificate Officer was required to consider the petitioner’s objections and the arbitral award before passing an order under Section 10 of the PDR Act.

Whether coercive recovery measures should remain suspended pending consideration of the petitioner’s objections.

Section 9 provides the certificate-debtor an opportunity to file objections against the certificate, while Section 10 requires the Certificate Officer to consider those objections and determine the matter in accordance with law.

The Court further directed that the arbitral award relied upon by the petitioner be considered by the Certificate Officer as part of the determination of the certificate proceedings.

No judicial precedent was cited or applied.

The Court noted that the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of filing objections under Section 9 of the PDR Act, despite challenging the certificate proceedings before the High Court.

Rather than adjudicating the disputed demand directly, the Court considered it appropriate to permit the petitioner to raise all available grounds before the Certificate Officer, including reliance on the arbitral award.

The Certificate Officer was consequently directed to consider those objections and the arbitral award and to pass an appropriate order under Section 10.

To preserve the effectiveness of this statutory process, the Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive action until such an order was passed.

The Certificate Officer was directed to consider the objections and the arbitral award and pass an order under Section 10 in accordance with law.

No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until that order was passed.

Interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.