# Chinta Mani / v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 2 ILRA 691
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-07-05
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1036 of 2010
- **Bench:** Ferdino Inacio Rebello, C.J. A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chinta-mani-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41679
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules-1975-Rule
29-readwith U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act; 1950section
279-Recovery
Collection
charges-10%-realization
upon
total
amount
sought
to
be
recovered-
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
contention
that
realisation
of
10%
collection charges simply on issue of
citation-not proper-it should not be more
than half-held-in absence of specific
pleading court under writ jurisdiction in
particular case can issue direction-but
not amount to dilute the impact of such
provision-view taken by single judgeheld justified.

Held: Para 25

It is something different that the High
Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India proceeds to make
certain
observations
or
grant
concessions on the peculiar facts of
individual cases. The same, in our
opinion, would not amount to laying
down an absolute proposition that the
recovery charges cannot be realized
even where only a Citation has been
issued. The Court in it's discretion may
pass orders but that would not amount
to dilute the impact of the provisions of
sub-section 2 of Section 279 of the 1950
Act. The contention, therefore, raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant
that the decision relied upon by him
mandate complete waiver of collection
charges cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed
1999 (2) AWC 1201, 1999 (2) AWC 1218,
1999 (2) AWC 1220

## Text

2 All] Chinta Mani V. State of U.P. and others
691
respondent no. 4, who was transferred to
Allahabad in 1974 itself continued awaiting
his confirmation which was done only on
1.2.1985. There is nothing on record to
indicate that at any point of time, earlier to
1.2.1985, the respondent no. 4 was
considered for confirmation and was not
found fit. The appellant was appointed at
judgeship of Mirzapur and was confirmed
in the Mirzapur Judgeship, whereas the
respondent no. 4 and the employee even
appointed earlier to him i.e. respondent no.
7, who was appointed as early as in 1967,
were not confirmed till 1.2.1985. The
present is not a case where confirmation of
all the employees was taken at Allahabad.
At Allahabad, the confirmation was made
with great delay in the year 1985 of the
respondent no. 4, who was transferred and
working at Allahabad from 11.4.1974 i.e.
after more than a decade, which was special
feature on the basis of which Administrative
Judge did not refer to or relied the
determination of seniority on the basis of
confirmation. The Administrative Judge has
rightly held that a person with different
attribute of confirmation cannot contend
that error was committed in not relying on
criteria of confirmation as provided under
Rule 19. Rule 19 does not mandatorily
provides that confirmation in service, in all
cases has to be the basis for determination
of seniority. It uses the word "ordinarily"
which gives a flexibility and in a case where
there are certain special circumstances, the
criteria other than the confirmation can be
adopted by the appointing authority, for
determination of seniority. In the present
case, the appellant was confirmed at
Mirzapur judgeship where he was appointed
and the respondent no. 4, who was
appointed earlier to appellant at Mirzapur
itself and transferred to Allahabad in the
year 1974, waited for his confirmation more
than a decade, which ultimately was done
on 1.2.1985. The reliance on the length of
service by the appointing authority cannot
be said to be arbitrary or beyond the scope
of Rule 19. Thus, Rule 19 itself permits in
exceptional cases to rely on criteria other
than confirmation and in the facts of the
present case, we are satisfied that substantial
justice has been done in determination of
seniority of petitioner and the respondent
no. 4, on the basis of length of service.

19. For the reasons as given above, we
are of the view that the order of the
Administrative Judge dated 23.1.2006
deserves to be affirmed and has rightly been
confirmed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in
dismissing the writ petition. The appellant is
not entitled for any relief.

The appeal is dismissed.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE FERDINO INACIO REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 1036 of 2010

Chinta Mani ...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others

 ...Respondents/Defendants

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Awadhesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Tripathi
C.S.C.

U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules-1975-Rule
29-readwith U.P. Z.A. & L. R. Act; 1950section
279-Recovery
Collection
charges-10%-realization
upon
total
amount
sought
to
be
recovered-
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
contention
that
realisation
of
10%
collection charges simply on issue of
citation-not proper-it should not be more
than half-held-in absence of specific
pleading court under writ jurisdiction in
particular case can issue direction-but
not amount to dilute the impact of such
provision-view taken by single judgeheld justified.

Held: Para 25

It is something different that the High
Court in the exercise of its extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India proceeds to make
certain
observations
or
grant
concessions on the peculiar facts of
individual cases. The same, in our
opinion, would not amount to laying
down an absolute proposition that the
recovery charges cannot be realized
even where only a Citation has been
issued. The Court in it's discretion may
pass orders but that would not amount
to dilute the impact of the provisions of
sub-section 2 of Section 279 of the 1950
Act. The contention, therefore, raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant
that the decision relied upon by him
mandate complete waiver of collection
charges cannot be accepted.
Case Law discussed
1999 (2) AWC 1201, 1999 (2) AWC 1218,
1999 (2) AWC 1220

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ferdino Inacio
Rebello, C.J.)

1. The appellant is a borrower. He
took a loan from the respondent - State
Bank of India, Branch Dibai, to the tune
of Rs. 2 Lacs for the purchase of a
Tractor.
The
appellant
admittedly
defaulted in making repayment of the said
agricultural loan that was disbursed in the
year
2001.
Consequently,
recovery
proceedings were initiated and a Citation
of recovery was issued for recovery of the
amount of loan as arrears of land revenue
under the provisions of the U.P Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950
read with the 1952 Rules.

2. The challenge in the writ petition
giving rise to this appeal was to the
Citation of recovery dated 3.4.2010
whereby a sum of Rs. 2,17,000/- was
sought to be recovered together with 10%
recovery charges. The learned single
Judge upon the concession made by the
appellant - petitioner that he is ready to
pay the entire amount of loan with interest
in easy installments, proceeded to pass an
order on 25.5.2010 fixing the time period
for the repayment and if the said schedule
was adhered to, it was also provided in
condition No. II that in case the
installments are deposited in the Bank,
then half of the collection charges only
shall be recovered from the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
contends that the grievance now only
remains with regard to half of the
recovery charges that are to be recovered
from the appellant under the impugned
judgment.

4. To substantiate his submissions,
learned counsel has cited 5 decisions
before us. The first decision is in the case
of Ram Niwas Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Special Appeal No.260 of 2010
decided on 22.3.2010; the second decision
is in Bed Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ Petition No.14518 of 2008
decided on 18.3.2008; the third decision is
in the case of Satish Vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ Petition No.9483 of 2002
decided on 6.3.2002; the fourth decision
is in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. State of
U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.33704 of 2006 decided on 3.7.2006;
and fifth decision relied on is in the case
2 All] Chinta Mani V. State of U.P. and others
693
of Mirza Javed Murtaza Vs. U.P.
Financial
Corporation,
AIR
1983
Allahabad 234 (Paragraph No.16).

5. On the strength of the said
decisions, learned counsel contends that
since no steps for actual recovery of the
amount
had
been
undertaken,
the
respondents are not entitled to realise any
collection charges from the petitioner. He
further submits that mere issuance of
Citation by itself is of no consequence as
it does not amount to an undertaking of
actual steps for recovery.

6. Learned Standing Counsel Sri
Pipersenia, on the other hand, contends
that the recovery is made in view of the
provisions of Section 279 of the U.P. Z.A.
& L.R. Act read with the Rules framed
thereunder. He submits that the contention
advanced on behalf of the petitioner and
the decisions relied on do not consider the
impact of the provisions of sub-section (2)
of Section 279 of 1950 Act. He contends
that the legal position cannot be diluted
and the decisions that have been relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are founded on concessions
extended by this Court in the exercise of
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution which cannot be
said to be laying down a law for waiving
recovery charges after the issuance of a
Citation by the Collector. He, therefore,
submits that the said decisions are clearly
distinguishable and hence the appeal
deserves to be dismissed.

7. Before proceeding to consider the
impact of the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant, it
deserves to be mentioned that the
recovery in the present matter arises out
of a Citation issued by the Collector of the
district for recovering the defaulted
amount of loan from the appellant as
arrears of land revenue. The said recovery
is being made under Section 279 of the
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act 1950 which is
quoted below:-

"279. Procedure for recovery of an
arrear of land revenue.- [1] An arrear
of land revenue may be recovered by
anyone or more of the following
process:

(a) by serving a writ of demand or
a citation to appear on any defaulter;

(b) by arrest and detention of his
person;

(c) by attachment and sale of his
moveable property including produce;

(d) by attachment of the holding in
respect of which the arrear is due;

(e) [by lease or sale] of the holding in
respect of which the arrear is due;

(f) by attachment and sale of other
immovable property of the defaulter,
[and]

[(g) by appointing a receiver of any
property, moveable or immovable of the
defaulter.]

[(2) The costs of any of the
processes mentioned in sub-section (1)
shall be added to and be recoverable in
the same manner as the arrear of land
revenue.]"

8. The Citation, which has been
appended along with the writ petition is in
Form 69 as provided for in Rule 236 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Rules, 1952, which is quoted
below:-

"236. Writs, citations, warrants of
arrest and warrants of attachment of
movable property shall be in the Z.A.
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Form 68, 69, 70 and 71. They shall be
signed by the issuing officer and sealed
with his official seal."

9. The writ or the Citation has to be
issued under orders of the Collector under
the provision of Section 280 of the Act
read with Rule 241 of the Rules. Rule 242
of the 1952 Rules sounds a caution that
before proceeding to take any other
coercive process like arrest, detention or
attachment, the Citation to appear should
be issued as a primary step ordinarily. The
question, which has been raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant, is with
regard to the extent of charges to be
realized by way of collection at the stage
of issuance of a citation. For this, a
reference may be had to Rule 243 of the
1952 Rules, which is quoted below:-

"[243. The fee charged for the
issue of a writ of citation to appear
shall be rupees two. This fee shall be
added to the arrears to which the writ
or citation is issued, and shall be
included in the amount specified
therein.]"

10. If the defaulter does not respond
to the said citation, then further coercive
steps as provided for can be taken. A
perusal of Rule 243 would indicate that
there is a specific fee of Rs. 2/- that is
authorized to be included along with the
amount as a fee for the memo of citation.
The question to be examined is as to
whether
the
costs
of
recovery
as
collection charges can be further imposed
saddling the borrower with a liability of
10% collection charges upon issuance of a
citation.

11. There is a notable aspect of the
manner of serving the citation. It has to be
done as per Rule 246 quoted below:-

"246. (1) Service of the writ or
citation shall, if possible be made on the
defaulter personally, but if service cannot
be made on the defaulter it may be made
on his agent. If the defaulter or his agent
cannot be found or if there is more than
one defaulter against whom a writ or
citation has issued a copy of the writ or
citation may be fixed at a prominent place
on or adjacent to the defaulter's residence.

(2) Personal service shall be made by
delivery to the defaulter or his agent of
the foil of the writ of citation. The other
portion shall be brought back to the tahsil
by the process-server and attached to the
counterfoil. When returning this portion,
the process-server shall report to the
officer whom the tahsildar may appoint
for served and if it was not served on the
defaulter personally, the reason why it
was not served. The official receiving the
report shall note the particulars on the
process, if this has not been done already.

(3)
With
the
sanction
of
the
Collector, writs of demand may also be
served by registered post. In such cases
the post office receipt shall be attached to
the counterfoil."

12. The Rule, therefore, requires the
service through a process server. It can be
done through the Collection Amin or
Collection peon of the department. They
are employed and paid from the State
Exchequer. It, therefore, cannot be said
that no actual expenses have been
incurred for serving a citation which is
also one of the modes of recovery. It is for
this reason that costs have been separately
2 All] Chinta Mani V. State of U.P. and others
695
provided for apart from the fee of the
memo of citation under Rule 243 of 1952
Rules. The mode of service through
registered post is provided for with the
permission of the Collector additionally.
The amount of actual expenses are a
different issue which can be calculated
under the Act and Rules subject to the
maximum of 10% of the principal amount
but the power to levy is traceable to the
provisions indicated above.

13. The legislative background that
authorises the Collector to proceed to
realise such collection charges has been
dealt with in a controversy that came to be
considered by a Division Bench of our
Court in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar
Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in 1999 (2) AWC 1201.
The said decision took notice of another
Division Bench judgment of this Court,
which has been relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Mirza Javed Murtaza (supra).

14. The matter was proceeded with
and the learned Judges of the Division
Bench differed in their opinions in
relation to the issues involved particularly
relating to the question of recovery of
10% collection charges under the garb of
the Government Order dated 30.8.1974.
This difference of opinion was referred to
a third Hon'ble Judge and the majority
opinion ruled that such recovery on the
mere issuance of a citation was not
leviable. The opinion of the Hon'ble third
Judge is reported in 1999 (2) AWC 1218
delivered on 13.11.1998. Accordingly, the
final
judgment
was
delivered
on
20.11.1998 which is reported in 1999 (2)
AWC 1220 holding that the recovery
could not include the amount of collection
charges on mere issuance of a citation.
The judgment was given a prospective
effect.

15. At this juncture, it would be
relevant to point out that in respect of
recovery under the U.P. Agricultural
Credit Act, 1973 read with Agricultural
Credit Rules 1975, there is a specific
provision in Rule 29 of the U.P.
Agricultural Credit Rules authorizing
recovery of 10% of expenses of recovery
once the process has started.

16. The aforesaid Division Bench
was noticed by a learned single Judge of
this Court in the decision of Smt. Vidya
Devi Vs. Collector, Mahoba and others,
1999 (3) AWC 1885, wherein the learned
single Judge in paragraph no.5 ruled as
follows:-

"5. Sub-section (2) of Section 279
provides that the cost of any of the
processes mentioned in sub-section (1)
shall be added to be recoverable in the
same manner as the arrears of land
revenue. Sub-section (2) was added by
U.P.
Act
No.12
of
1965
with
retrospective effect. It is clear from this
provision that the costs of process can
be recovered even if the sale had not
taken place if the realisation of the
amount has been made as arrears of
land revenue by any of the modes
prescribed under Section 279 of the
Act."

17. The Court further went on to
consider the impact of the Division Bench
judgement and held that the recovery of
cost in each of the different processes are
different. The conclusions drawn are in
paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the said
judgment.
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010

18. Faced with the aforesaid legal
position pronounced by this Court, the
State Government in order to justify such
collections enacted U.P. Act No.37 of
2001 titled as Revenue Recovery (U.P.
Amendment) Act 2001 giving it a
retrospective effect from 30.8.1974. This
was obviously enacted to overcome the
ratio of the decision in Mahalakshmi
Sugar Mill's case (supra). The provision
that was brought forth clearly indicates
the reason for the same as stated in
objects and reasons quoted below:-

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND
REASONS

The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890
inter alia, provides for the procedure for
recovery of an arrear of land revenue or a
sum recoverable as an arrear of landrevenue. The State Government has, vide
G.O. No.285/11-69 (II-876)-Revenue-7,
dated August 26, 1974, directed for
recovery of collection charge equal to ten
per cent of the amount stated in the
recovery certificate, in addition to the
amount stated in the recovery certificate.
The
High
Court
of
Judicature
at
Allahabad has, vide its order dated
November 20, 1998 in Writ Petition
No.29612 of 1992, M/s. Mahalaxmi Sugar
Mills Ltd. V. State of U.P. and others,
quashed the said Government Order
mainly on the ground that the said Act as
also the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Recovery
Rules, 1966 do not provide for recovery
of collection charge in addition to the
amount stated in the recovery certificate.
The State Government filed Special leave
Petition No.6192 of 1999 against the said
order of the High Court. The Supreme
Court while granting the leave applied
for, did not stay the operation of the said
order of the High Court. It has, therefore,
been decided to withdraw the said Special
Leave Petition and to amend the said Act
to provide for the recovery of collection
charge also at the rate not exceeding ten
per cent of the amount stated in the
recovery certificate and to validate the
recoveries already made in pursuance of
the said Government Order.

The
Revenue
Recovery
(Uttar
Pradesh Amendment) Bill, 2001 is
introduced accordingly."

19. The amendments that have been
incorporated
for
authorising
the
realisation of costs to the maximum of
10% would be evident from the same
which is quoted below:-

"THE REVENUE RECOVERY (UTTAR
PRADESH AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
(U.P. Act No.37 of 2001)
(As passed by the Uttar Pradesh
Legislature)
AN
ACT

Further to amend the Revenue
Recovery Act, 1890 in its application to
Uttar Pradesh.

It is hereby enacted in the Fiftysecond Year of the Republic of India as
follow:

1.Short
title,
extent
and
commencement.-- (1) This Act may be
called the Revenue Recovery (Uttar
Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2001.

(2)It shall extend to the whole of
Uttar Pradesh.

(3)It shall be deemed to have come
into force on August 30, 1974.
2 All] Chinta Mani V. State of U.P. and others
697

2. Amendment of Section 3 of Act
No.1 of 1890.-- In Section 3 of Revenue
Recovery Act, 1890, hereinafter referred
to as the principal Act, for sub-section (3)
the following sub-sections shall be
substituted, namely:

"(3) The Collector of the other
district shall, on receiving the certificate,
proceed to recovery the amount stated
therein, together with the costs of the
recovery, as if it were an arrear of land
revenue which had accrued in his own
district.

(3-a) The costs of the recovery
under sub-section (3) shall be such as
may
be
specified
by
the
State
Government by notification but the
amount of such costs shall not exceed
ten per cent of the amount stated in the
certificate."

3. Amendment of Section 4.-- In
Section 4 of the principal Act,--

(a) in sub section (1)--

(i) for the words "pays the same" the
words "pays the same together with the
costs referred to in sub-section (3a) of the
said section" shall be substituted;

(ii) for the words "repayment of the
amount" the words "repayment of the
amount stated in the certificate" shall be
substituted;

(b)
after
sub-section
(4)
the
following sub-section shall be inserted,
namely:

"(5) where a suit instituted under
sub-section (2) is decreed, wholly or
partly, the Court shall also direct that the
defaulter shall be repaid the proportionate
costs paid by him under sub-section (1)."

4. Amendment of Section 5.-- In
Section 5 of the principal Act, for subsection (3) the following sub-sections
shall be substituted, namely:

"(3) The Collector shall, on receipt of
the certificate under sub-section (1),
proceed to recover the amount stated
therein, together with the costs of the
recovery as if the amount stated in the
certificate were payable to himself and
such costs were also an arrear of land
revenue.

(3a) The costs of the recovery
under sub-section (3) shall be such as
may
be
specified
by
the
State
Government by notification but the
amount of such costs shall not exceed
ten per cent of the amount stated in the
certificate."

5. Amendment of Section 6.-- In
Section 6 of the principal Act, --

(a) in sub-section (2) for the words
"in the certificate" the words "in the
certificate together with the costs of the
recovery" shall be substituted;

(b) In sub-section (3) for the words
"in the certificate" the words "in the
certificate or the costs of such recovery"
shall be substituted;

(c) in sub-section (4) for the words
"in a certificate" the words "in a
certificate or the costs of such recovery"
shall be substituted;

6. Amendment of Section 10.-- For
Section 10 of the principal Act, the
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
following section shall be substituted,
namely:

"10. Duty of Collectors to remit
moneys collected in certain cases.-- Where
a Collector receives a certificate under this
Act from the Collector of another district or
from any other public officer or from any
local authority he shall remit the sum
recovered by him by virtue of that
certificate to the Collector or the other
public officer or the local authority after
deducting the sum recovered as costs of the
recovery."

7. Validation and Consequential
provisions.--
Notwithstanding
any
judgment, decree or order of any Court, the
costs of a recovery recovered over and
above the amount stated in the certificate
referred to in Section 3 or Section 5 of the
principal Act from a defaulter under an
order of the State Government, shall be
deemed to have been validly recovered
under the principal Act as amended by this
Act and no defaulter shall be entitled for
refund of such costs, and if such costs have
not been so recovered the same shall be
recoverable from the defaulter under the
corresponding provisions of the principal
Act as amended by this Act as if the
provisions of the principal Act as amended
by this Act were in force at all material
times."

20. A perusal of sub-section 2 of
Section 279 of the 1950 Act empowers the
Collector to add the cost of any of the
processes mentioned in sub-section (1) in
the Recovery Citation and the same has
been made recoverable in the same manner
as arrears of land revenue. The aforesaid
provision, therefore, being the charging
section , clearly empowers the recovery of
costs of processes mentioned in sub-section
(1). Clause (a) of sub-section 1 is also one
of the processes provided for making
recovery of an arrears of land revenue. The
said sub-section recites that the recovery
can be made by serving a writ of demand or
a citation to appear on any defaulter. Thus,
the provision itself indicates the service of a
writ of demand or a Citation as one of the
processes by which the recovery can be
made. The other processes thereafter follow
namely arrest, detention, adjustment and
sale or lease including movable and
immovable property. In the instant case, we
are only concerned with the issuance of a
Citation as according to the appellant, the
other
processes
of
arrest,
detention,
adjustment and sale have not been
undertaken and it is at the stage of issuance
of the Citation that the appellant had filed
the writ petition.

21. The contention on behalf of the
appellant that no such collection charges
can be realised, to our mind, does not
appear to be correct inasmuch as subsection (2) also empowers the Collector to
realise costs of recovery even where the
processes adopted is by serving a writ of
demand or a Citation to appear. Sub-section
2 of Section 279 does not contemplate that
some other actual process apart from the
issuance of Citation should be undertaken
for raising a liability of recovery charges.
Sub-section 2 would apply independently to
clause (a) of sub-section 1. The provisions
of the Revenue Recovery Act 1890 and the
Rules framed thereunder as noted above
supplement the aforesaid procedure for
realising collection charges as well.

22. The impact of the said provisions
have not been noticed in any of the other
cases that have been relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. The
judgment in detail with regard to realisation
2 All] Chinta Mani V. State of U.P. and others
699
of collection charges which has been
referred to in para 16 of the decision in the
case of Mirza Javed Murtaza (supra) is in
relation to the processes of sale of
immovable property under Rule 284 of the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The Division
Bench observed that the loan that was
sought to be recovered therein was extended
by the U.P. Financial Corporation and the
Managing Director of the Corporation can
only ask the Collector to recover the amount
as arrears of land revenue. The Court further
went on to observe that what would be the
actual cost of the proceeding would
naturally be ascertained when the costs are
actually incurred. The said observations
were made in relation to Rule 284 of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms Rules which are in relation to sale
of immovable property. The ratio of the said
decision would not be attracted hereunder
inasmuch as that was a case where a process
of distress by sale of immovable property
had been undertaken. The said decision has
nowhere considered the impact of subsection 2 of Section 279 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act
as referred to herein above. In view of the
said position as also the subsequent
amendments as noticed above, the ratio of
the said decision would, therefore, not apply
on the facts that have emerged in the present
case.

23. Accordingly, we are of the opinion
that so far as the law is concerned, the
provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 279
do not contain any provision for an absolute
waiver of recovery charges where a Citation
has been issued under sub-section 1 of the
said provision. The charging section itself
empowers the Collector to raise such
demand subject to the rules and the
provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act
(U.P. Act No.37 of 2007) referred to herein
above.

24. There are no provisions introduced
in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act 1950 for the levy of 10%
collection
charges
but
the
Revenue
Recovery Act 1890 has been amended as
noted above. There is no challenge to the
vires of the amendments introduced through
U.P. Act No.37 of 2007. Accordingly, we
do not propose to examine the issue any
further.

25. It is something different that the
High Court in the exercise of its extra
ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India proceeds to make
certain observations or grant concessions on
the peculiar facts of individual cases. The
same, in our opinion, would not amount to
laying down an absolute proposition that the
recovery charges cannot be realized even
where only a Citation has been issued. The
Court in it's discretion may pass orders but
that would not amount to dilute the impact
of the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section
279 of the 1950 Act. The contention,
therefore, raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the decision relied upon
by him mandate complete waiver of
collection charges cannot be accepted.

26. The appellant has not raised any
challenge to the procedure adopted by the
respondents and there is no foundation for
the same. He has agreed to the repayment in
easy instalments. There is no pleading or
material to demonstrate as to why and how
the amount of 10% collection charges now
reduced to half under the impugned
judgment is excessive or miscalculated. The
statute as quoted above provides for an
outer limit of recovery of 10% of the
principal amount as collection charges. It,
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
therefore, can be a matter of contest before
the competent authority if the collection
charges are in violation of any procedure or
are being imposed excessively. In the
absence of any material or foundation to
that effect in the writ petition, this issue
cannot be made the basis for interference
with the discretion exercised by the learned
single Judge.

27. So far as the grant of concession is
concerned, we have examined the judgment
of the learned single Judge and we find that
the learned single Judge has, taking a
compassionate view of the matter, waived
off 50% of the recovery charges.

28. In such an event and in view of the
reasons given herein above, we are not
inclined to exercise our jurisdiction to
interfere with the impugned order. The
appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE A.K. ROOPANWAL, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1845 of 2010

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rajkali and another ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri S.K. Mehrotra

Workmen's
Compensation-section
30Appeal-Act
1923-Section
2(1)(e)-
Definition-'Workman'- includes a person
employed in any Capacity-without being
prejudice with nature of employment
may be either regular or temporary, or
casual
or
contractual-deceased
employed
with
Corporation
on
contractual basis-finding recorded by
workmen's compensation commissionerjustified based on record-can not be
interfered-under writ jurisdiction.

Held: Para 28 and 29

It has been established on record that
the
said
Devendra
Singh
sustained
injuries while driving the aforesaid Bus,
and he died on account of the said
injuries. Therefore, the death of the said
Devendra Singh took place on account of
the injuries sustained by him by accident
arising out of and in the course of his
employment with the respondent no.2.

In the circumstances, we are of the
opinion
that
the
Workmen's
Compensation
Commissioner
was
justified in awarding compensation to
the
claimant-respondent
no.
1
on
account
of
the
death
of
the
said
Devendra
Singh
in
the
aforesaid
accident.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Satya Poot
Mehrotra, J.)

1. The present Appeal has been filed
under Section 30 of the Workmen's
Compensation Act, 1923 against the
judgment and Order dated 30.3.2010
passed by the Workmen's Compensation
Commissioner,
Bulandshahr
whereby
compensation
amounting
to
Rs.
3,01,304/- with simple interest at the rate
of 6% per annum has been awarded to the
claimant-respondent no.1 on account of
the death of Devendra Singh, son of the
claimant-respondent no.1 in an accident,
which
took
place
at
9
A.M.
on
29.12.2005.

2. The claimant-respondent no.1
filed Claim Case being W.C.A. No. 07 of