P.C. Chaturvedi, Contractor vs Collector and Others

D.S. Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Dhruva Narayan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri R. C. Yadav, learned standing counsel representing the Respondents at length.

At the behest and instance of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Construction Division, Mathura, the Respondent No. 4, a sum of Rs. 36,184 in respect of four agreements, containing conditions as are incorporated in I.D. Form No. Ill, a copy whereof is Annexure-T to this petition, is sought to be recovered from the Petitioner for which purpose recovery proceedings have been initiated and requisite recovery certificate has been sent from the Collector, Mathura, the Respondent No. 1, to the Collector, Kanpur, the Respondent No. 2.

The Petitioner asserts that the amount in question is sought to be realised under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, as amended by the Revenue Recovery (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965, (hereinafter called the Act). According to him, there is nothing in the Act which may empower either the Respondent No. 4 to issue any certificate or may authorise any Collector to realise from the Petitioner the disputed amount as arrear of land revenue and recovery proceedings are, therefore, without Jurisdiction and void.

Neither in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents nor during the course of arguments on their behalf, it is disputed that recovery of the disputed sum is being effected under the provisions of the Act.

Sections 3 and 5 of the Act deal with recovery of sum due from a defaulter. in the Instant case, indisputably, the Respondents are proceeding to effect recovery u/s 5 of the Act.

The expression ''defaulter'' is defined in Sub-section (3) of Section 2 of the Act which reads thus:

Definitions.--In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,-

(1) ...

(2) ...

(3) "defaulter" means a person from whom arrears of land revenue, or a sum recoverable as arrear of land revenue, is due, and includes a person who is responsible as surety for the payment of any such arrear or sum.

Section 5 of the Act is as under;

Recouery by Collectors of sums recoverable as arrears of revenue on the certificates of public officers and local authorities.--(1) Where any sum is recoverable as arrear of land revenue by any public officer other than a Collector or by any local authority, such officer or authority may send to the Collector of the district in which the office or authority is situate or of any other district in Uttar Pradesh where the defaulter is or has property, a certificate in such form as may be prescribed by rules made in this behalf.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the certificate shall be conclusive of matters therein stated.

(3) The Collector shall on receipt of the certificate under Sub-section (1), proceed to recover the amount stated therein as if the sum were payable to himself.

(4) The provisions of Section 4 shall have effect in relation to such certificate as if it were a certificate sent under Sub-section (1) of Section 3.

A combined reading of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 and Section 5 makes it abundantly clear that under the Act, a sum can be recovered by any public officer other than a Collector or by a local authority only if it is shown to be recoverable as arrear of land revenue.

Then the question arises when can a sum be said to be recoverable as arrear of land revenue. The Act does not define the sum which is recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. Therefore, it would be legitimate to presume that the sum shall be recoverable as arrear of land revenue if it is declared by any other statute to be so recoverable or where there is an agreement between the person from whom recovery is sought to be made and the authority at whose behest recovery is enforced stipulating recovery of the sum as arrear of land revenue.

The learned standing counsel has not been able to show any statutory provision declaring the sum sought to be recovered from the Petitioner to be recoverable as arrear of land revenue. in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, reliance has been placed on clauses 1 and 2(A) of the I.D. Form III which contains the various conditions of four contracts between the Petitioner and the concerned authority. The court has carefully scrutinised the said clauses 1 and 2 (A) and does not find anything therein which may be construed as an agreement between the Petitioner and the relevant authority stipulating the disputed sum to be recoverable as arrear of land revenue. The learned standing counsel also, very fairly, admits this position. Inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the disputed amount cannot be recovered from the Petitioner under the provisions of the Act.

In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned recovery proceedings for realisation of the disputed amount under the provisions of the Act shall stand quashed. There is no order as to costs.