# Jai Singh v. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 1053
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-18
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jai-singh-v-state-of-u-p-thorugh-collector-barabanki-42292
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

U.P. Agricultural Credit Act 1973-Section
11-A- Recovery of Agricultural duespetitioner borrowed Rs. 2 Lacs for
purchase of Tractor-committed some
default in payment of installments-under
Agricultural Debt relief scheme, 2008amount of Rs. 2,21017/ waived as such
on 01.04.2008. only Rs. 47059 plus
interest-found due against petitioneragainst that Bank issued R.C. For Rs.
2,11,534/- and recovered Rs. 2 Lacs by
putting
the
Tractor
as
well
other
immovable property on auction salewithout asking the petitioner to deposit
balance amount of Rs. 47059/ nor
followed the procedure for auction sale
Respondents
not
proceeded
on
Transparent, valid and just manner-no
due date fixed for deposit of balance
amount
held-not
only
recovery
certificate
but
all
subsequent
proceeding-nullity-causing
serious
harassment, embarrassment-amount to
depriving from constitutional right of
Art. 21 and 300-A of Constitution-
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Recovery proceeding quashed-with coast
of 10 Lacs.

Held: Para 33 and 63

The
height
of
irresponsibility
and
illegality on the part of respondents may
further be demonstrated from the fact
that Section 11-A confers jurisdiction
upon Bank to issue a recovery certificate
only when the agriculturist fails to pay
the amount due together with interest
on the due date. After giving benefit of
Scheme, 2008, and recalculating dues,
the Bank found balance of Rs. 47059/-
only as on 01.04.2008. There is nothing
on record to show, when and by which
date, the petitioner was required to
deposit aforesaid sum of Rs. 47059/-
and what was the due date for that
purpose. Even thereafter adding amount
of interest fell due w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and
onwards, there is nothing on record to
show
that
before
issuing
recovery
certificate
dated
23.01.2009,
any
demand was raised to petitioner to pay
the said outstanding dues so as to
constitute a "due date". In fact after
determining outstanding dues of Rs.
47059/- pursuant to Scheme, 2008,
though a certificate was issued by Bank
to petitioner on 18.09.2008 (Annexure-1
to the writ petition) but neither before
that nor after that petitioner was ever
required to deposit the aforesaid sum of
Rs. 47059/- by a particular date. Hence,
there was no occasion to infer that
petitioner-agriculturist
has
failed
to
deposit outstanding dues by due date
entitling the Bank to issue certificate of
recovery under Section 11-A of Act,

## Text

_Characters 0–39,844 of 57,132. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39844 for what follows._

2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1053

Authority
by
which
granted/
renewed.........................

Date when certificate of fitness ceased
to be valid...................

Reasons
for
cessation
of
validity.......................

I enclose herewith tax clearance
certificate required under Rule 73 of the
Central Rules.

Dates:.........................

Signature or thumb-

impression of applicant.

73. Tax clearance certificate to be
submitted to the testing station- No
authorised testing station shall accept an
application for the grant or renewal of a
certificate of fitness unless the same is
accompanied by a tax clearance certificate
in such form as may be specified by the
State Government, from the Regional
Transport
Officer
or
motor
vehicle
inspector having jurisdiction in the area to
the effect that the vehicle is not in arrears of
motor vehicle tax or any compounding fee
referred to in sub-sections (5) and (6) of
Section 86."

16. In the end the petitioner prayed for
an order to allow him to deposit half arrears
of tax for obtaining fitness certificate. We
do not find any good ground to entertain the
prayer as the tax is payable as soon as the
incident of payment of tax in the charging
section falls. In the present case the taxes
are paid in advance. There is no provisions
under the Act or the Rules to defer the
liability of payment of tax.

17. The writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Misc. Single No. - 4192 of 2009

Jai Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abdul Rasheed

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
A.S.G.
Sri Alka Saxena
Sri Sharad Tewari

U.P. Agricultural Credit Act 1973-Section
11-A- Recovery of Agricultural duespetitioner borrowed Rs. 2 Lacs for
purchase of Tractor-committed some
default in payment of installments-under
Agricultural Debt relief scheme, 2008amount of Rs. 2,21017/ waived as such
on 01.04.2008. only Rs. 47059 plus
interest-found due against petitioneragainst that Bank issued R.C. For Rs.
2,11,534/- and recovered Rs. 2 Lacs by
putting
the
Tractor
as
well
other
immovable property on auction salewithout asking the petitioner to deposit
balance amount of Rs. 47059/ nor
followed the procedure for auction sale
Respondents
not
proceeded
on
Transparent, valid and just manner-no
due date fixed for deposit of balance
amount
held-not
only
recovery
certificate
but
all
subsequent
proceeding-nullity-causing
serious
harassment, embarrassment-amount to
depriving from constitutional right of
Art. 21 and 300-A of Constitution-
1054 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Recovery proceeding quashed-with coast
of 10 Lacs.

Held: Para 33 and 63

The
height
of
irresponsibility
and
illegality on the part of respondents may
further be demonstrated from the fact
that Section 11-A confers jurisdiction
upon Bank to issue a recovery certificate
only when the agriculturist fails to pay
the amount due together with interest
on the due date. After giving benefit of
Scheme, 2008, and recalculating dues,
the Bank found balance of Rs. 47059/-
only as on 01.04.2008. There is nothing
on record to show, when and by which
date, the petitioner was required to
deposit aforesaid sum of Rs. 47059/-
and what was the due date for that
purpose. Even thereafter adding amount
of interest fell due w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and
onwards, there is nothing on record to
show
that
before
issuing
recovery
certificate
dated
23.01.2009,
any
demand was raised to petitioner to pay
the said outstanding dues so as to
constitute a "due date". In fact after
determining outstanding dues of Rs.
47059/- pursuant to Scheme, 2008,
though a certificate was issued by Bank
to petitioner on 18.09.2008 (Annexure-1
to the writ petition) but neither before
that nor after that petitioner was ever
required to deposit the aforesaid sum of
Rs. 47059/- by a particular date. Hence,
there was no occasion to infer that
petitioner-agriculturist
has
failed
to
deposit outstanding dues by due date
entitling the Bank to issue certificate of
recovery under Section 11-A of Act,
1973. In the circumstances, since no
right or authority accrued to the Bank to
issue a recovery certificate under Section
11-A of Act, 1973, not only the recovery
certificate
but
all
subsequent
proceedings are a nullity in the eyes of
law.

The
petitioner's
Tractor
which
has
already been sold long back, mere
restoration thereof, after almost three
years, would not restore the situation
back to petitioner since depreciation and
deterioration of something like Tractor is
very fast and has its own impact. This
Court finds it really very hard and
disheartening
that
the
respondents
holding responsible offices could proceed
in such an illegal manner, that too with
impunity,
without
showing
any
compassion
and
heart
to
the
helplessness
of
petitioner,
causing
virtually state of ruination to him.
Casea law discussed:
1999 (4) AWC 3520; JT 2011 (8) SC 232; 1972
AC 1027; 1964 AC 1129; JT 1993 (6) SC 307;
JT 2004 (5) SC 17; (1996) 6 SCC 530; (1996)
6 SCC 558; AIR 1996 SC 715; AIR 1979 SC 49;
2009 (13) SC 643; 2009 (2) SCC 592; JT 2007
(3) SC 112; AIR 1979 SC 429; AIR 2006 SC
182; AIR 2006 SC 898; (2007) 9 SCC 497;
(2009) 6 SCALE 17; (2009) 7 SCALE 622; JT
(2009) 12 SC 198; 1997 (1) SCC 34; 1997 (6)
SCC 339; 2001 (7) SCC 231; 2004 (9) SCC
319; AIR 2005 SC 2755

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Abdul Rasheed,
Advocate for petitioner, Sri Vishnu Dev
Shukla, Brief Holder for respondents
no. 1, 3 and 5, Sri Sharad Tewari,
Advocate for respondent no. 2 and Smt.
Alka Saxena, Advocate for respondent
no. 4.

2. This case is an illustration of
high
handedness
of
Government
officials and financial institutions to
ruin a poor farmer/ Agriculturist by
snatching away whatever little he
possesses
for
his
sustenance.
It
demonstrates that once a poor fellow
falls in the trap of borrowing a little
money from a public sector financial
institution, he gets trapped in the iron
vice of wrongful demand, erroneous
determination of outstanding dues, non
acknowledgement of amount paid by
him and ultimately goes to the extent of
2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1055
losing whatever little he possess in the
name of property, whether moveable
and immoveable through process of
recovery by duress.

3. It is really unfortunate that in a
country boasting of its main vocation as
"agriculture", and most of the people are
engaged in farming, though constituting
small or marginal farmers having small
holdings, still after more than six
decades, not only find it difficult to
arrange their two square meals for
family but in the fond hope of
development
founded
on
dreamy
schemes launched by Government, they
ultimately dash their entire hopes and
expectations. Many a times property and
life also.

4. I would like to first narrate
factual matrix of this unfortunate case
which has caused an extraordinary and
grave injustice to poor petitioner, a
small farmer, who fell in the trap of
borrowing and consequential unmindful
recovery in the hands of respondents no.
1 to 4 which shall demonstrate how the
petitioner has been subjected to patent
illegal and arbitrary proceedings .

5. The petitioner, Jai Singh,
resident of Village Maroofpur, Post
Mohammadpur,
Tehsil
Haidergarh,
District Barabanki possessed certain
land and for the purpose of cultivation
thereof and others, decided to purchase
a tractor. He looked towards Union
Bank of India Branch at Barabanki for
financial assistance and applied for
advancement of loan of Rs. 2 lacs in the
year 2000. The loan was sanctioned on
12.12.2000. It must have actually been
paid later on. It appears that petitioner
could not deposit regular installments
and committed default. The Bank
allegedly issued several notices, i.e.,
08.11.2001,
25.01.2002,
19.04.2002,
18.06.2002, 19.09.2002, 20.12.2002 and
11.03.2003. It also appears that a
recovery certificate itself was issued by
Bank on 26.05.2003 for a sum of Rs.
270606/- plus interest w.e.f. 01.03.2003.

6.

The
aforesaid
recovery
certificate could not be executed and in
the meantime the Bank also accepted
certain payments from petitioner though
not constituting regular installments.

7. The Government of India in the
meantime came with a debt relief
scheme, namely, "Agricultural Debt
Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008"
(hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme,
2008") whereunder the petitioner was
found entitled for waiver of a sum of
Rs. 221017/-. It is admitted that
petitioner was entitled for the said
benefit and consequently the aforesaid
amount was reimbursed to Bank by
Government of India and it was adjusted
towards the outstanding dues against
petitioner vide certificate of waiver
dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure-1 to the
writ petition). It is admitted by Bank
that after the said adjustment only a sum
of Rs. 47059/- plus interest w.e.f.
01.04.2008
remained
outstanding
against petitioner. However, despite
having issued certificate of waiver dated
18.09.2008, the Bank issued a recovery
certificate for Rs. 211534/-. The exact
date of aforesaid recovery certificate has
not been stated by any of the parties but
this is evident from record that the
petitioner
when
represented
that
recovery
proceedings
initiated
by
respondents no. 1 to 3 for recovering a
sum of Rs. 211534/- is illegal, as no
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
such amount was due, the Bank issued a
revised
recovery
certificate
on
24.01.2009
mentioning
the
amount
claimed to be recovered from petitioner
as Rs. 47059/- plus interest at the rate of
12.50% per annum w.e.f. 01.03.2003
(though in the waiver certificate the
balance was Rs. 47059/- plus interest
w.e.f. 01.04.2008).

8.

The
respondents-revenue
authorities,
however,
continued
to
proceed for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs and
odd, attached immoveable property of
petitioner and put it for auction by
auction notice dated 15.05.2009 notified
18.06.2009 as the date of auction vide
Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The
petitioner's property namely, Khata No.
27, Gata Nos. 10, area 0.665; 135 Kha,
area 0.072; 136 Kha, area 0.026; 183,
area 0.080; 212 Ka, area 0.104; 213
Kha, area 0.115; 235 Ka, area 0.054;
242, area 1.099; and, 313 A, area 0.415
in total 2.088 acres was attached vide
notice dated 15.09.20-09 and by auction
dated 18.06.2009 it was put for auction
which included besides the property in
Khata No. 27, 29 and 102 measuring
total area is more than nine acres.

9. Besides, the Deputy Collector
also seized petitioner's Tractor No.
HMT
-UP41-D-2094
owned
by
petitioner on 09.06.2009 and proceeded
to auction the same.

10. The petitioner has made
serious
allegations
against
revenue
authorities as also the Branch Manager
of Bank in commencing and proceeding
to go ahead with aforesaid recovery
proceedings by auctioning not only the
tractor but also immoveable property for
recovery of Rs. 2,11,000/- and odd,
though as a matter of fact, the total dues
against petitioner was only Rs. 47,000/-
and odd. The grievance of petitioner is
that none was ready to hear him. The
petitioner also sought to raise his
grievance by sending representations to
Chief Minister and Prime Minister on
05.06.2009
and
10.07.2009
and
thereafter filed present writ petition.

11. It is not in dispute that
pursuant to order passed by this court on
04.08.2009 the petitioner has deposited
Rs.
50,000/-
with
the
Bank
on
11.08.2009. By means of supplementary
affidavit, the petitioner has also placed
on
record
Bank's
letter
dated
11.08.2009,
informing
that
total
outstanding dues against petitioner were
only Rs. 66,100/- against which Rs.
63,823/- were received from Tehsil
authorities on 31.07.2009, leaving a
balance of Rs. 2277/-, and, by adding
counsel's fee of Rs. 3415/- the total dues
outstanding are Rs. 5692, hence deposit
of Rs. 50,000/- made by petitioner
cannot be retained by Bank and it
sought to refund the amount of Rs.
50,000/- by banker's cheque No. 15070
with request to petitioner to deposit only
Rs.
5692/-
and
obtain
no
dues
certificate.

12. The respondents no. 1 and 3
have filed a counter affidavit sworn by
Vinod
Kumar,
Deputy
Collector
Haidergarh,
Barabanki,
stating
that
citation was wrongly issued by revenue
authorities
for
recovery
of
Rs.
2,11,543/- on account of lack of
clarification
in
recovery
certificate
issued by Bank. As soon as the above
mistake
was
discovered,
recovery
proceedings in respect to immoveable
property of petitioner was deferred and
2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1057
instead
of
Rs.
2,11,543/-
the
proceedings continued for Rs. 47059/-
only.
Since
the
authorities
had
withdrawn
citation issued
for
Rs.
2,11,543/- the writ petition has lost
cause of action and deserved to be
dismissed. It is further stated that in the
recovery certificate issued by Bank, at
one
column
Rs.
2,11,543/-
was
mentioned, and at another Rs. 47059/-
was mentioned. The Tehsil authorities,
therefore, proceeded to recover Rs.
2,11,543/-
and
issued
citation
accordingly. Subsequently, when the
mistake was detected and it was found
that only Rs. 47059/- and interest
thereon was outstanding, the inquiry got
conducted
through
concerned
Naib
Tehsildar who informed that wrong
citation for Rs. 2,11,543/- has been
issued though only Rs. 47059/- and
interest therein is recoverable. On the
aforesaid report of Naib Tehsildar, the
Deputy Collector, Haidergarh, passed
order on 29.07.2009 not to proceed with
auction of immoveable property and
recover only Rs. 47059/- alongwith
recovery charges. The order dated
29.07.2009 is Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit filed by respondents
no. 1 and 3. It is, however, not disputed
that
Tractor
was
auctioned
on
31.07.2009 for Rs. 63823/- which
amount was tendered to the Bank on the
same date, i.e., 31.07.2009. It is also
stated that as per intimation given by
Bank after receipt of Rs. 63823/- from
Tehsil authorities, only Rs. 2277/-
remain balance and adding interest
thereon
upto
31.08.2009,
recovery
charges and counsel's fee, the total
comes to Rs. 6693/-. The break up
mentioned
in
Bank's
letter
dated
08.08.2009,
Annexure-CA-2
to
the
counter affidavit of respondents no. 1
and 3, reads as under:

^^orZeku cdk;k 'ks"k

2277-00
(Present balance dues)
C;kt 31-8-2009

 703-00
(Interest)

--------------------

 2980-00
10% vkj-lh- pktsZt

 298-00
(R.C. charges)

---------------------

 3278-00

gkbZdksVZ odhy pktsZt
 3415-00
(High Court Advocate's
charge)

------------------------

dqy cdk;k 31-8-09 rd 6693-00"
(Total balance upto 31.08.09)

13. The petitioner filed an application
for impleadment of the auction purchaser,
respondent no. 5 alleging that from own
showing of respondents no. 1 and 3 in their
affidavit sworn on 24.08.2009, the Tractor
was attached on 09.06.2009 but they have
not disclosed any date of auction of Tractor
except bare averment that amount received
after auction of Tractor, i.e., Rs. 63823/-
was tendered to the Bank on 31.07.2009,
i.e., four days ahead when this Court passed
an interim order dated 04.08.2009. He,
therefore, sought amendment of writ
petition by adding certain paragraphs,
grounds and relief challenging the auction
of his Tractor. It is pleaded that entire
alleged auction is nothing but a mischief
and illegal collusive act of revenue
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
authorities as also the auction purchaser and
it is in utter violation of the statute.

14. In the rejoinder affidavit to the
counter affidavit of respondents no. 1 and 3
the petitioner has reiterated his allegations
of various illegalities on the part of revenue
authorities as also the Bank resulting in
alleged illegal auction of his Tractor. It is
further said that the Tractor has been
auctioned on throw away price; due to
illegalities committed by respondents the
petitioner has suffered a huge loss for not
being able to produce his agricultural crops
due to seizure and attachment of his Tractor
as also the immoveable property. The entire
action is nothing but a pre-planned
conspiracy of Bank Manager as also the
revenue authorities, i.e., Deputy Collector
and others and their action is not only illegal
but has caused serious loss to petitioner in
respect to his property and person, both.

15. Respondent no. 2 has also field a
counter affidavit through its Advocate Sri
Sharad Tiwari sworn on 09.04.2012. It is
clearly stated in para 6 thereof that after
extending the benefit of Scheme, 2008 to
the petitioner, only a sum of Rs. 47059/-
plus
interest
remained
due
as
on
01.04.2008. Though it is mentioned that
besides aforesaid amount recovery charges
were also due but it does not appear from
the record as to on what basis the recovery
charges would have fallen due if no
recovery proceedings in accordance with
law were ever initiated against petitioner.
The allegations against the Branch Manager
made by petitioner have been denied but in
para 8 it is stated that admitted recovery
certificate was issued on 23.01.2009. Then
in para 15 it is further stated that another
recovery certificate for Rs. 66,100/- was
issued on 17.06.2009.

16. From the counter affidavit filed by
Bank I find reference of three recovery
certificates, first is dated 26.05.2003 for Rs.
2,70,606 plus interest w.e.f. 01.03.2003 vide
para 4; second is revised recovery certificate
dated 23.01.2009 for Rs. 47,059/- vide para
8; and, third is again a revised recovery
certificate dated 17.06.2009 for Rs. 66,100/-
vide para 15. Besides above, they have also
given the date of seizure of Tractor on
09.06.2009 and date of auction thereof on
31.07.2009 and deposit of Rs. 63,823/- with
Bank on the same day, i.e., on 31.07.2009.
In para 13 it is stated that re-revised
recovery
certificate
dated
17.06.2009
included interest upto 30.06.2009. A copy
of re-revised recovery certificate dated
17.06.2009 is Annexure-CA-1 to the
counter affidavit of respondent no. 2
wherein outstanding dues up to 30.06.2009
is shown as Rs. 66,100/- plus interest and
recovery charges, the total being Rs.
72,710/-.

17. In the above factual backdrop, this
Court would consider, whether recovery
initiated against petitioner in the present
case resulting in loss of his Tractor for all
times to come and deprivation of his
immoveable property for certain period
preventing him from going ahead with
agricultural activities thereon, has any
sanctity of law at all, the respondents' action
is in conformity with statute or not and
whether the fault, if any, is only an
unintentional error or is malicious.

18. It is not in dispute that loan
advanced to petitioner fell in the category of
"agricultural loan". Its recovery is governed
by provisions of U.P. Agricultural Credit
Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act, 1973"). Section 11-A provides
procedure for recovery through Collector
and reads as under:
2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1059

11-A. Recovery in the case of
personal security.--(1) Where any amount
of financial assistance is granted by a Bank
to an agriculturist and the agriculturist
fails to pay the amount together with
interest on the due date, then without
prejudice to the provisions of Sections 10-B
and 11, the local principal officer of the
Bank by whatever name called may forward
to the Collector a certificate in the manner
prescribed, specifying the amount due from
the agriculturist.

(2) The certificate referred to in subsection (1) may be forwarded to the
Collector within three years from the date
when the amount specified in the certificate
fell due.

(3) On receipt of the certificate, the
Collector shall proceed to recover the
agriculturist the amount specified therein
together with expenses or recovery as
arrears of land revenue, and the amount
due to the Bank shall be paid after
deducting the expenses of recovery and
satisfying any Government dues or other
prior charges, if any.

Explanation.--For the the purposes of
this section, the expression "Collector"
means the Collector of the district in which
the agriculturist ordinarily resides or
carries on the activities referred to in clause
(a) or Section 2 or where any movable or
immovable property of the agriculturist is
situate, and includes any officer, authorised
by him in that behalf."

19. Though the Bank has referred to
recovery certificate issued on 26.05.2003
but it is nobody's case that any such
recovery certificate was ever proceeded by
revenue authorities against petitioner. It is
also not the case of Bank that before issuing
such recovery certificate any notice was
ever served upon petitioner demanding Rs.
2,70,606/- plus interest from him w.e.f.
01.03.2003. The Court also finds it difficult
to understand, how a loan of Rs. 2 lacs
sanctioned vide letter dated 12.12.2000 and
actually disbursed even thereafter could be
swollen to Rs. 2,70,000/- by May, 2003,
i.e., within two years and five months. The
copy of sanction letter is on record as
Annexure-SA-2
to
the
supplementary
affidavit dated 22.06.2012. It shows that
petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 2
lacs at the rate of interest of 12.5% per
annum. The aforesaid amount was payable
by petitioner in nine years, to be more
precise, in 17 equal instalments of Rs.
11,769/- and accrued interest has to fall due
in June and December of every years or
after marketing of crops, whichever is
earlier. The first installment was payable
due in December, 2001. The cost of Tractor
was shown as Rs. 2,39,500/-. Its date of
purchase is not given. The date of actual
disbursement of loan to petitioner is also not
mentioned anywhere. It could not be
clarified to this Court as to how Rs. 2 lacs
with interest rate only 12.5% per annum
would swollen by more than Rs. 70,000/-
within two years and five months from the
date of sanction of amount, i.e., 12.12.2000
and not the date of actual disbursement.
Unfortunately
the
date
of
actual
disbursement has not come on record but
even if it is treated to be the date of
sanction, by no manner of calculation the
aforesaid amount could reach to Rs.
2,70,000/- and odd justifying recovery
certificate dated 26.05.2003 demanding the
aforesaid amount.

20. On the contrary, what this Court
finds is that the first installment, as per the
sanction letter, as said above, was due in
December, 2001 but the Bank alleged to
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
have sent several notices and the first one is
dated 08.11.2001. This Court fails to
understand when the very first installment
was payable only in December 2001, what
was the occasion for Bank to issue a notice
on 08.11.2001 since nothing could have
fallen due on that date. This itself shows a
lack of honest and responsible approach on
the part of Bank since very inception.

21. Moreover, even if it is treated that
petitioner had committed default by not
paying any installment upto December,
2002, since the next installment would have
fallen due in June, 2003, the compound
interest, if calculated at the rate of 12.5% on
the loan amount of Rs. 2 lacs, would come
around Rs. 50,000/- and odd and by no
stretch of imagination can reach to Rs.
70,606/- plus interest w.e.f. 01.03.2002,
which has been mentioned by Bank in its
counter affidavit. The erroneous and
incorrect determination and demand on the
part of Bank from the very initial stages
thus also stand fortified.

22. The revenue authorities also do
not claim to have proceeded to recover Rs.
2,70,000/- and odd on the basis of alleged
recovery certificate dated 26.05.2003. No
demand or citation to this effect for Rs.
2,70,606/- is shown to have ever been
issued and served upon the petitioner. The
Bank also accepted subsequent payments
thereafter made by the petitioner. When
Scheme, 2008 came into effect, the benefit
thereof was extended to petitioner vide
certificate dated 18.09.2008. The total
outstanding dues against petitioner as on
29.02.2008 was found Rs. 2,68,076/-
whereagainst Rs. 2,21,017/- was the amount
waived leaving balance of Rs. 47059/- as on
31.03.2008. This is evident from Annexure1 and 2 to the writ petition read
cumulatively.

23. The Bank, however, issued a
recovery certificate dated 23.01.2009 even
before sending letter dated 11.02.2009 to
the petitioner and without mentioning any
due date, i.e., the date by which petitioner
was required to clear balance dues (as is
evident from Annexure-3 to the writ
petition). The Bank's counter affidavit (para
4) mentions the date of recovery certificate
as 23.01.2009 and also gives particulars of
amount as Rs. 47059/- plus interest at the
rate of 12.5% per annum from 01.03.2003
though
from
the
certificate
dated
18.09.2008
(Annexure-1
to
the
writ
petition) it is evident that at the time of
giving benefit of Scheme, 2008, the entire
outstanding dues as on 29.02.2008 were
taken into account and thereafter adjustment
was made. This is also fortified from letter
dated 11.02.2009 wherein the Bank has said
that present outstanding amount is Rs.
47059/- whereupon the interest has to be
included w.e.f. 01.04.2008 and recovery
charge. Apparently and evidently, even this
recovery certificate dated 23.01.2009 did
not give a correct amount recoverable from
petitioner. It has also wrongly mentioned in
clause (v) the amount claimed as fell due on
01.04.2004, though upto 31.03.2008, the
entire dues were calculated and adjusted.
This recovery certificate and details given
therein do not tally with Bank's certificate
dated 18.09.2008 (Annexure-1 to the writ
petition) and letter dated 11.02.2009
(Annexure-2 to the writ petition).

24. Even the statement of accounts
placed before this court by Bank, AnnexureCA-2 to its counter affidavit for the period
of 20.03.2005 to 07.04.2012 shows that in
March, 2008 after crediting Rs. 2,21,017/-
under Scheme, 2008 the only amount
outstanding against petitioner was Rs.
47059/-. It is not the case of Bank that any
notice as contemplated, demanding Rs.
2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1061
47059/- and interest thereon was issued to
petitioner at any point of time before issuing
recovery certificate dated 23.01.2009. In
absence of such demand, it could not have
been said that petitioner has failed to pay
loan upto due date. Similar is the position in
respect to subsequent recovery certificate
dated 17.06.2009.

25. There are some more startling
facts throwing light on the conduct of
respondents.

26. The revised certificate admittedly
was received by revenue authorities much
before June, 2009 having been issued by
Bank on 23.01.2009. It has been stated by
Deputy Collector that after receiving
revised recovery certificate when it was
found by Tehsil authorities that wrong
citation has been issued, immediately Naib
Tehsildar was directed to enquire into
matter and submit his report and thereafter
on his report the Deputy Collector passed
order dated 29.07.2009, not to proceed with
auction of immoveable properties to recover
only Rs. 47059/- alongwith recovery
charges.

27. Be that as it may, it is also evident
from record that petitioner's immoveable
property was already attached and seized by
revenue authorities and they had put it for
auction
by
notice
dated
15.05.2009,
notifying 18.06.2009 as the date of auction.
The
property
attached
by
revenue
authorities is a large piece of land and it is
not their case that the same would not have
fetched sufficient amount to satisfy the
demand under recovery. Yet they proceeded
to attach petitioner's Tractor on 09.06.2009
and went ahead to auction the same on
31.07.2009. This action is wholly beyond
comprehension.
When
immoveable
property was already in the hands of
revenue authorities and they could have
recovered due amount by auction of said
property, what was the occasion to proceed
to attach petitioner's Tractor thereafter, i.e.,
on 09.06.2009.

28. Moreover, with regard to date of
auction of said Tractor, nothing has been
placed on record by revenue authorities to
take
this
Court
into
confidence
to
demonstrate that auction was held validly
and strictly in accordance with law. Even
this has not been informed as to what was
the date notified for such auction and in
what manner. It is only on 31.07.2009 but
abruptly the auction is said to have been
made and amount received from auction
purchaser has been deposited in Bank on
the same date though under the statute, such
an amount was liable to be deposited
through a Bank Draft. All these facts lead to
an inference that respondents have not
proceeded in a transparent, valid and just
manner. There is something fishy in the
matter and their action besides being illegal
is also malicious in law. Somebody
somewhere was definitely interested to
snatch petitioner's property in one or the
other way and in this attempt has also
succeeded considerably. It is a different
thing that this Court shall not let anybody
go
scot-free
without
facing
the
consequences thereof. The extraordinary
hurry shown in proceeding when petitioner
determined to come to this Court, is also
evident from further facts. This writ petition
was prepared on 28.07.2009 and notice was
served upon Bank's counsel on 29.07.2009
with clear information that it shall be filed
in the Court on 30.07.2009. There was some
defect reported by Stamp Reporter which
was removed but it took about a day,
whereafter writ petition could be presented
on
31.07.2009
and
was
heard
on
04.08.2009. The Court found it strange that
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
total outstanding dues against petitioner was
Rs. 47059/- alongwith interest yet, Tehsil
authorities were proceeding to recover more
than Rs. 2 lacs from petitioner. It was in
these circumstances, the Deputy Collector
was summoned before this Court to remain
present with record on 24.08.2009. This
order was passed after hearing learned
Standing Counsel as also the counsel for
Bank on 04.08.2009. Now immediately
thereafter everything is said to have been
finalised resulting in extinction of Tractor in
the garb of auction, allegedly held on
31.07.2009, and on that day itself the
amount is deposited in petitioner's account
in the Bank by Amin though under Rule 30
of U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules,
1975") the aforesaid amount could have
been sent to Bank only by way of Bank
draft and not otherwise.

29. It is really difficult to understand
that on the same day auction could have
been completed and thereafter Amin could
have got the draft prepared and submitted in
the Bank.

30. In observing the above this Court
finds it prudent to refer the process of
attachments and sale of moveable property
as prescribed in U.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Rules, 1952"). Under
Act, 1973, dues under Section 11-A can be
recovered as "arrears of land revenue" by
Collector.
Further
procedure
is
not
provided. For the purpose of procedure, it is
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Lard
Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to
as the "Act, 1950") and Rules framed
thereunder which would apply. This is what
was observed by this Court in Ram Pher
Yadav Vs. Union Bank Of India and
others, 1999(4) AWC 3520.

31. Section 282 of Act, 1950
empowers the Collector to attach and sale
moveable property. Rule 254 of Rules, 1952
empowers the Collector or Assistant
Collector In-charge of Sub-division to issue
process for attachment and sale of moveable
property. Rule 257 contemplates issuance of
warrant for sale of moveable property in ZA
Form 72, specifying the amount for
recovery of which sale has been ordered and
also to require the property to be sold in
default of such amount after lapse of such
period as may be specified. It is not
disclosed by revenue authorities at all as to
when this warrant for sale under Rule 257
was issued by them and what was the period
notified to petitioner demanding him to pay
entire amount mentioned therein, failing
which his moveable property shall be
auctioned. These facts were in the
knowledge of revenue authorities and they
having failed to disclose details thereof, this
Court has no option but to draw inference
against them adversely to the extent that
procedure laid down in statute regarding
auction of moveable property has not been
followed.

32. Everything appears to have been
done in extra haste, may be to justify and
save the authorities from an apparent illegal
and unauthorised act on their part which
they have tried to explain under the pretext
of sheer mistake. The distinction in
"mistake" and "deliberate defiance" and
"illegality" has to be seen from the manner
in which the authorities have proceeded in a
particular case since it is difficult to
otherwise find a positive evidence.

33. The height of irresponsibility and
illegality on the part of respondents may
further be demonstrated from the fact that
Section 11-A confers jurisdiction upon
Bank to issue a recovery certificate only
2 All] Jai Singh V. State of U.P.Thorugh Collector Barabanki
1063
when the agriculturist fails to pay the
amount due together with interest on the
due date. After giving benefit of Scheme,
2008, and recalculating dues, the Bank
found balance of Rs. 47059/- only as on
01.04.2008. There is nothing on record to
show, when and by which date, the
petitioner was required to deposit aforesaid
sum of Rs. 47059/- and what was the due
date for that purpose. Even thereafter
adding amount of interest fell due w.e.f.
01.04.2008 and onwards, there is nothing
on record to show that before issuing
recovery certificate dated 23.01.2009, any
demand was raised to petitioner to pay the
said outstanding dues so as to constitute a
"due date". In fact after determining
outstanding dues of Rs. 47059/- pursuant to
Scheme, 2008, though a certificate was
issued by Bank to petitioner on 18.09.2008
(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) but neither
before that nor after that petitioner was ever
required to deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs.
47059/- by a particular date. Hence, there
was no occasion to infer that petitioneragriculturist
has
failed
to
deposit
outstanding dues by due date entitling the
Bank to issue certificate of recovery under
Section 11-A of Act, 1973. In the
circumstances, since no right or authority
accrued to the Bank to issue a recovery
certificate under Section 11-A of Act, 1973,
not only the recovery certificate but all
subsequent proceedings are a nullity in the
eyes of law.

34. Thus not only wholly illegal
proceedings were initiated against petitioner
which have resulted in depriving him of his
Tractor,
sold
unauthorisedely
by
respondents in a manner which has no
sanction in law. It has and must have also
caused serious harassment, embarrassment
etc. to petitioner and his family in various
ways. The petitioner's property has been
snatched away and he has been deprived
thereof by following a procedure which has
no sanction in law. In other words, in an
illegal manner, the petitioner has been
deprived of his property and, therefore, his
constitutional right under Article 300-A has
been
violated.
Besides,
by
keeping
petitioner under threat of coercive method
of recovery, his fundamental right to live his
life peacefully and with dignity has also
been interfered and infringed, violating
Article 21 of the Constitution. It has also
caused loss to the person like petitioneragriculturist, in losing his land for certain
period, depriving him to grow crops thereat
which has caused not only a personal loss to
petitioner but a loss to national production,
may be to a very little extent, but that is
certainly there.

35. The authorities, it appears, have
acted with a confidence that whatever they
shall be doing, would not fall upon them in
any manner. At the best, if a Court of law
finds anything wrong, it can/shall only
quash their orders and nothing more than
that. Their attitude appears to have been not
to proceed objectively and honestly in the
matter but to somehow or other grab
property
of
petitioner,
moveable
or
immoveable, as the case may be, and
subject it to public auction so as to give
away on throw away prices.

36. In Delhi Jal Board Vs. National
Campaign for Dignity and Rights of
Sewerage and Allied Workers and Ors.,
JT 2011(8) SC 232 the Apex Court has
reminded the authority of the Court in a
case where fundamental rights of a citizen
are infringed with such kind of impunity. It
say that the Court possess enough power to
take care of victimisation of innocent citizen
and compensate him appropriately by
passing appropriate orders. The Court said
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
that Article 21 which guarantees right to life
and liberty, will be denuded of its
significant content if the power of Court is
held limited to passing orders of removing
Executive's illegal orders/action only and
nothing more than that. The Court further
said that one of the telling ways in which
violation of such right can reasonably be
prevented and due compliance with the
mandate of Constitution including Article
21 can be secured, is to mulct its violators in
payment
of
monetary
compensation.
Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant
infringements of fundamental rights cannot
be corrected by any other method open to
the
judiciary.
To
adopt
right
to
compensation is some palliative for the
unlawful acts of instrumentalities, which act
or has acted in the name of public interest
and which present, for their protection, the
powers of the State, as a shield. If
civilisation is not to perish in this country as
it has perished in some others, it is
necessary
to
educate
ourselves
into
accepting that respect, for the rights of
individuals is the true bastion of democracy.

37. In our system, the Constitution
being supreme, yet the real power vests in
the people of India since the Constitution
has been enacted "for the people, by the
people and of the people". A public
functionary cannot be permitted to act like a
dictator causing harassment to a common
man and, in particular, when the person
subjected to harassment is a poor innocent
citizen
in
the
category
of
farmer/agriculturist. Their plight cannot be
allowed to be ignored.

38. The respondents being the State
Government, i.e., "State" under Article 12
of the Constitution of India, its officers are
public functionaries. As observed under our
Constitution, sovereignty vests in the
people. Every limb of the constitutional
machinery therefore is obliged to be people
oriented. Public authorities acting in
violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions oppressively are accountable for
their behaviour. It is high time that this
Court should remind the respondents that
they are expected to perform in a more
responsible and reasonable manner so as not
to cause undue and avoidable harassment to
the public at large. The respondents have
the support of the entire machinery and
various powers of the statute. An ordinary
citizen or a common man is hardly
equipped to match such might of the State
or its instrumentalities. Harassment of a
common man by public authorities is
socially
abhorring
and
legally
impermissible. This may harm the common
man personally but the injury to society is
far more grievous.

39. Crime and corruption, thrive and
prosper in society due to lack of public
resistance.