Post-arrears property transfers under revenue recovery law are governed by Section 44(2), without prior notice under Section 44(3).

A post-arrears transfer of immovable property may be proceeded against under Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act where it is made with intent to defeat or delay recovery, and prior service of demand notice under Section 44(3) is not a precondition for that statutory treatment. Section 44(3) addresses a distinct situation involving transfer to a near relative or for grossly inadequate consideration, where the presumption operates on its own terms. A Supreme Court declaration on the meaning of the provision binds all courts under Article 141, so a contrary earlier single-judge view does not state the correct law.

---

---

Issues: Whether a transfer of immovable property made after arrears of public revenue have fallen due is governed by Section 44(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act, and whether prior service of demand notice and compliance with the proviso to Section 44(3) are preconditions for invoking the statutory presumption or for proceeding against such transfer.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 44 as independent. Where the transfer of property is made after the arrears have fallen due, Section 44(2) applies and the transfer does not bind the Government if it is made with intent to defeat or delay recovery. Section 44(3) deals with a different situation, namely transfer to a near relative or for grossly inadequate consideration after arrears have fallen due, and the statutory presumption arises on the terms of that provision. The binding effect of a Supreme Court declaration of law cannot be undermined on the ground that certain aspects or the proviso were not separately adverted to, because under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts.

Conclusion: Prior notice under Section 44(3) is not a precondition to the application of the statutory presumption where the transfer is made after arrears have fallen due, and the earlier contrary single-judge view does not state the correct law.

Final Conclusion: The controlling rule is that a post-arrears transfer may be proceeded against under Section 44(2), and the Supreme Court's interpretation of Section 44 governs despite contrary earlier views.

Ratio Decidendi: A Supreme Court interpretation of the governing statutory provision binds all courts under Article 141, and a transfer made after arrears have fallen due is governed by Section 44(2) without making prior notice under Section 44(3) a necessary precondition.

---