Shiv Kumar Soni vs Collector Hamirpur and Others

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following reliefs: (i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceeding against the petitioner arising out of citation notice dated 1421992 issued by Respondent No. 2 in persuance of recovery notice/demand notice dated 20111991 issued by Respondent No. 3. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from realising the amount shown in the demand notice and citation notice dated 721992 from the petitioner, (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 not to realise amount under citation notice dated 721992.

His pleading is as follows: He was granted a Theka for Rs. 75,000 for a period of one year i.e., 141990 to 3131991, in the auction held by the Respondent No. 3 for collection of Tahbazari in the town of Kulpahar, District Hamirpur. He deposited the auction money with the Respondent No. 3 after the conclusion of final bid. He started realizing the Tahbazari in the town of Kulpahar. The State of Uttar Pradesh, vide Government Order, abolished realization of Tahbazari all over the State. The Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of the Government Order cancelled the Theka of the Petitioner vide its order dated 1121991 without any notice or information to the petitioner. Through a newsitem/public not ice dated 4121990 in Prachin Jyoti, a local weekly Hindi paper, published from Ajnar, Hamirpur, the order of cancellation of his Theka was published directing the public not to pay the Tahbazari to him or his agent. (A Photostat copy of the said newsitem is Annexure1 to the writ petition). After the aforesaid publication, he moved an application to the Respondent No. 3 that since his Theka has been cancelled on account of abolition of Tahbazari he is not liable to pay the remaining amount of auction money. The Respondent No. 3 sent a notice dated 20111991 to him for payment of Rs. 23,700 towards the balance amount of the auction money within a week otherwise coercive steps would be initiated for recovery of the said amount. (A true copy of the said notice dated 2011 1991 is Annexure4 to the writ petition, although in the writ petition it is wrongly mentioned as Annexure2). After receipt of the said Recovery Notice, he moved an application on 5121991 to the Respondent No. 3 that he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari from 1121990 to 3131991 on account of cancellation of the Tahbazari in pursuance of the Government Order. (A true copy of the application dated 5121991 is Annexure2 to the writ petition, although it is wrongly mentioned as Annexure3 in the writ petition). As no order was passed by the Respondent No. 3 on his aforesaid application then he moved another application dated 1311992 stating therein that he was not liable for payment of Rs. 23,700 towards the auction money, as he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari for no fault of his own. (A true copy of the said application dated 1311992 is Annexure3 to the writ petition, although wrongly mentioned in the writ petition as Annexure4). Respondent No. 3 without deciding his applications dated 5121991 and 1311992 sent the Recovery to the Respondent No. 1 for realization of Rs. 23,700 as arrears of land revenue and the Respondent No. 1 in turn ,has sent the Recovery to the Tehsildar, the Respondent No. 2, for realization as arrears of land revenue. The Respondent No. 2 has issued Citation Notice for recovery of amount of Rs. 26,077 i.e., Rs. 23,700 as unpaid amount plus Rs. 2,370 as collection charges and Rs. 7 as cost of notice. A true copy of the Citation Notice is Annexure5 to the writ petition. He is not liable to pay the aforesaid amount as he was not allowed to collect the Tahbazari by the Respondent No. 3.

The Respondents have not filed any counteraffidavit to controvert the aforesaid averments of the petitioner.

Heard Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one turns up to rebut his submissions.

We are of the view that in the interest of justice the aforesaid two applications of the Petitioner dated 5121991 and 1311992 were required to be disposed of by the Respondent No. 3 before proceeding to realize the aforesaid amount or if the said applications had already been disposed of by the Respondent No. 3 then he was required to intimate that fact to the petitioner.

In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with direction to Respondent No. 3 to decide the aforesaid applications of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of presentation or receipt of a certified copy of this order from any quarter, whichever is earlier. The recovery proceedings shall await the decision of Respondent No. 3. No cost since no one appeared to oppose the prayer before us.

The office is directed to send a copy of this within a week to the Respondent No. 3 for its intimation to and follow up action. Petition disposed of.