Shazad Ali vs Collector Haridwar and Others

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Mr. Swayambhoo Chandranshul, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.C. Tewari, learned Brief Holder for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned Counsel for respondents 3 to 5, on interim relief application and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the loan in dispute is a commercial loan and it cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has relied on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court Iqbal Naseer Usmani Vs. Central Bank of India and Others, .

In the above cited case, Hon''ble Apex Court has held that under U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, recovery of bank loan, as arrears of land revenue is permissible only if loan is advanced under State sponsored scheme.

In the case in hand the contention of the petitioner is that the loan taken by him was commercial and not under State sponsored scheme. The notices annexure Nos. 2 and 4, annexed with the petition, reveal that the Bank has initiated proceeding against the petitioner under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

The fact to be scrutinised in this case is whether the loan was advanced to the petitioner under State sponsored scheme or it is a commercial loan. Therefore, the respondent/bank shall file counter affidavit and explain this fact whether the loan was advanced under State sponsored scheme or it is a commercial loan, within a period of three weeks.

Till next date of listing no recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

The stay application stands disposed of. List on 19-10-2010.