Attachment during recovery proceedings must yield to a bona fide stay application and be lifted once recovery is stayed.

Coercive attachment during pendency of a bona fide stay application was not justified unless there was assessee default, deliberate delay, or other exceptional circumstances; the authority was expected to act reasonably and await disposal of the stay request. Once the Tribunal stayed recovery, the attachment, being only a step in the recovery process under the land revenue machinery, had to cease, and it could not be continued on the ground that no separate stay of attachment had been granted. The impugned attachment was quashed, and the revenue entries were ordered to be removed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondents were justified in passing an attachment order while the stay application was pending before the Tribunal; (ii) whether the attachment could be continued after the Tribunal granted stay against recovery.

Issue (i): Whether the respondents were justified in passing an attachment order while the stay application was pending before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The pending stay application required the authorities to act reasonably and to await its disposal, unless there was default by the assessee or deliberate delay in hearing the application. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, initiation of coercive recovery during pendency of the stay application was not warranted.

Conclusion: The attachment order could not be justified merely because the stay application was pending.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment could be continued after the Tribunal granted stay against recovery.

Analysis: The attachment was made in exercise of powers under the land revenue recovery machinery and was therefore part of recovery proceedings. Once recovery had been stayed by the Tribunal, the respondents were bound to give effect to that order and could not continue the attachment on the footing that no separate stay had been granted against attachment. The continuation of attachment after stay was inconsistent with the stayed recovery process.

Conclusion: The attachment could not be continued after the stay order and was liable to be lifted.

Final Conclusion: The impugned attachment was quashed and the respondents were directed to remove the attachment and all consequential revenue entries, thereby granting relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an attachment is only a step in recovery proceedings, the authority must stay its hands during pendency of a bona fide stay application and must lift the attachment once recovery is stayed, absent exceptional circumstances.

---