CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 04 AHC CK 0425

Jai Bahadur Singh vs Union Bank of India

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 6 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 6 ADJ 325 : (2011) 4 AWC 4321 : (2011) 8 RCR(Civil) 2931 : (2011) 113 RD 672

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.P. Mehrotra, J · Rajesh Chandra, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 19717 of 2011
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 388 words
1.

The present Writ Petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the Respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh for recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972.

2.

In paragraph 4 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has, inter alia, stated that the loan was taken "in the scheme of P.M.R.Y to install Motor Vehicle".

3.

As the purpose for grant of loan and also the scheme, if any, under which the same was granted, was not clear from the averments made in the Writ Petition, we granted time to Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union Bank of India to obtain instructions in the matter.

4.

Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union Bank of India has obtained instructions in the matter, and on the basis of the said instructions, he states that the loan was given to the Petitioner for purchasing Motor Vehicle, namely, Mahindra Bolero.

5.

Shri A.T. Kulshrestha further states that such loan cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and the Recovery Certificate has been sent by the Respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh under misconception.

6.

We have heard Shri Avinash Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union Bank of India.

7.

In view of the statement made by Shri A.T. Kulshrestha, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Union Bank of India, it is evident that the recovery proceedings initiated against the Petitioner by issuance of Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 for making recovery as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 are without jurisdiction.

8.

In view of the above, the Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the Respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is liable to be quashed.

The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The Recovery Certificate dated 4.1.2011 sent by the Respondent-Union Bank of India to the Collector, District Azamgarh (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition) is quashed.

This order will, however, not come in the way of the Respondent-Union Bank of India to proceed against the Petitioner to make recovery in respect of the loan in question in accordance with law.