Separate recovery demands cannot be clubbed into one sale proclamation where consolidation is not authorised by law.

Distinct recovery demands under different heads cannot be combined into one consolidated coercive sale process unless the governing law permits such consolidation. Clubbing multiple recovery cases and issuing a single sale proclamation was held to be legally unsustainable because it caused serious prejudice and was not cured by rejection of objections or by appellate and revisional affirmations. The recovery measures and related orders were therefore quashed, while the authorities were left free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the clubbing together of multiple recovery cases relating to different dues and the issuance of a consolidated sale proclamation under the recovery proceedings were legally sustainable.

Analysis: The demands sought to be recovered related to different kinds of dues, yet they were combined into a single set of proceedings and pursued through one consolidated sale proclamation. Such clubbing was held to be unsupported by law and to have caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The rejection of objections and the subsequent appellate and revisional affirmations could not cure the illegality in the manner of recovery adopted.

Conclusion: The clubbing of the demands and the consolidated recovery action were illegal, and the orders rejecting the objections as well as the sale proclamation were liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned recovery measures were set aside, while leaving the authorities free to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Distinct recovery demands under different heads cannot be clubbed together for a consolidated coercive sale process where the governing law does not sanction such consolidation and the procedure causes prejudice.

---