# Manoj Agarwal v. Collector, Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 1343
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-12-14
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 12168 of 2010
- **Bench:** F.I. Rebello, C.J. Pradeep Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-agarwal-v-collector-lucknow-and-others-41797
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues Act
1972-Section 3)-Recovery of telephone
bills-as
arrears
of
land
Revenue-in
absence Deed of agreement, nor advance
any loan, nor related to credit of higherpurchase of goods by Banking Camp or
govt Company under state sponsored
scheme-issue
of
recovery
certificate
held-without
jurisdiction-legal
aspect
discussed.

Held: Para 5

It would, thus, be clear that for the
purpose of recovery of dues as arrears of
land
revenue,
there
must
be
an
agreement relating to a loan, advance or
grant and if there be a default of
payment of any installment thereof, then
said amount defaulted can be recovered
as arrears of land revenue. In the instant
case, respondent no.3 has not given any
loan, advance or grant to the petitioner,
nor is related to credit in respect of, or
relating to hire-purchase of goods sold
by a Banking Company or a Government
Company under the State-sponsored
scheme. Thus, it will be clear that the
recovery certificate issued by respondent
no.3 for recovery of the amount in terms
of the Act 1890 is clearly without
jurisdiction and without authority of law
and, consequently, respondents 1 and 2
could not have acted on the same. The
recovery citation, therefore, issued by
respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction.

(Delivered By Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

## Text

3 All] Manoj Agarwal V. Collector, Lucknow and others
1343
inquiry for cancellation of petitioner's
arms licence be expedited with his
cooperation by the Licensing Authority.

7. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.

Misc. Bench No. 12168 of 2010

Manoj Agarwal

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Collector, Lucknow and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Subhash Vidyarthi

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.
A.K. Chaturvedi

U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues Act
1972-Section 3)-Recovery of telephone
bills-as
arrears
of
land
Revenue-in
absence Deed of agreement, nor advance
any loan, nor related to credit of higherpurchase of goods by Banking Camp or
govt Company under state sponsored
scheme-issue
of
recovery
certificate
held-without
jurisdiction-legal
aspect
discussed.

Held: Para 5

It would, thus, be clear that for the
purpose of recovery of dues as arrears of
land
revenue,
there
must
be
an
agreement relating to a loan, advance or
grant and if there be a default of
payment of any installment thereof, then
said amount defaulted can be recovered
as arrears of land revenue. In the instant
case, respondent no.3 has not given any
loan, advance or grant to the petitioner,
nor is related to credit in respect of, or
relating to hire-purchase of goods sold
by a Banking Company or a Government
Company under the State-sponsored
scheme. Thus, it will be clear that the
recovery certificate issued by respondent
no.3 for recovery of the amount in terms
of the Act 1890 is clearly without
jurisdiction and without authority of law
and, consequently, respondents 1 and 2
could not have acted on the same. The
recovery citation, therefore, issued by
respondent no.2 is without jurisdiction.

(Delivered By Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

1. M/s. Richa Telecom, a propriety
firm of the petitioner, entered into an
agreement with M/s. ICICI Prudential Life
Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter
referred to as the 'ICICI Company') for
providing telecom services. Pursuant to
that, according to the petitioner, he took a
number of telephone connections from
various telecom companies, including
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
which were installed at various offices of
the ICICI Company. There arose some
disputes and differences between the
petitioner and the ICICI Company in
respect of payment of bills, which have
been referred to an Arbitrator.

2. According to the petitioner, the
telecom companies including BSNL -
respondent no.3, raised several bills for
various telephone connections taken by the
petitioner at various locations across the
Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal, and on
21.06.2010,
respondent
no.3
sent
a
recovery certificate to the Collector,
Lucknow for recovery of a sum of Rs.
1,65,699/- towards arrears of telephone
bills as arrears of land revenue. According
to the petitioner, respondent no.3 is a
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Company
incorporated
under
the
Companies Act, and dues of its telephone
bills cannot be recovered as arrears of land
revenue, as it has no authority to issue
recovery certificate to the Collector,
Lucknow for recovery of the amount as
arrears of land revenue and, as such, the
recovery certificate issued is null and void.
The petitioner is also aggrieved by
recovery citation dated 06.09.2010 issued
by the Tehsildar, Lucknow, for a sum of
Rs. 1,65,699/-,in pursuance of the said
recovery certificate.

3. The principal contention urged on
behalf of the petitioner is that neither the
respondent no.3 could have issued the
recovery certificate nor could respondents
1 and 2 issue the citation for recovery of
dues of respondent no.3, as the agreement
entered into between the petitioner's firm
and respondent no.3 is purely a contractual
agreement.
The
recovery
certificate
purported
to
have
been
issued
by
respondent no.3 is under the provisions of
the
Revenue
Recovery
Act,
1890
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1890').
Section 3 of the Act 1890 sets out that
where an arrear of land revenue or a sum
recoverable as an arrear of land revenue, is
payable to a Collector by a defaulter being
or having property in a district other than
that in which the arrears accrued or the
sum is payable, the Collector may send to
the Collector of other district a certificate
in the form as nearly as may be of the
Schedule, setting out various particulars as
set out therein. It would, thus, be clear that
insofar as the provisions of the Act 1890
are concerned, the amount sought to be
recovered must be an arrear of land
revenue or a sum recoverable as an arrear
of land revenue and payable to a Collector
by a defaulter.

4. Appearance has been put on behalf
of respondent no.3, though no reply has
been filed. On being asked by the Court to
show as to under which provision, the
recovery certificate was sent by respondent
no.3 to respondents 1 and 2 for recovery of
the amount, learned counsel for the
respondent no.3 fairly concedes that there
is no provision under which the said
amount could be recovered as arrears of
land revenue.

5. There is another provision,
namely, the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys
(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (in short
'Act 1972'), wherein 'Corporation' has been
defined under Section 2(a). The petitioner
is not a Corporation as per Section 2(a) of
the Act 1972. It may be a Government
Company in terms of Section 2 (c) of the
Act 1972. The relevant portion of Section
3 of the Act 1972 reads as under:-

"3. Recovery of certain dues as
arrears of land revenue.- (1) Where any
person is party,--

(a) to any agreement relating to a
loan, advance or grant give to him or
relating to credit in respect of, or relating
to hire-purchase of, goods, sold to him by
the State Government or the Corporation,
by way of financial assistance; or

(b) to any agreement relating to a
loan, advance or grant given to him or
relating to credit in respect of, or relating
to hire-purchase of goods sold to him, by a
banking company or a Government
company, as the case may be, under a
State-sponsored scheme; or

(c) to any agreement relating to a
guarantee given by the State Government
3 All] Manoj Agarwal V. Collector, Lucknow and others
1345
or the Corporation in respect of a loan
raised by an industrial concern; or

(d) to any agreement providing that
any money payable thereunder to the State
Government [or the Corporation] shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and
such person--

(i) makes any default in repayment of
the loan or advance or any instalment
thereof; or

(ii) having become liable under the
conditions of the grant to refund the grant
or any portion thereof, makes any default
in the refund of such grant or portion or
any instalment thereof; or

(iii) otherwise fails to comply with the
terms of the agreement;

then, in the case of the State
Government, such officer as may be
authorised in that behalf by the State
Government by notification in the official
Gazette, and in the case of the Corporation
or a Government company the Managing
Director [or where there is no Managing
Director then the Chairman of the
Corporation, by whatever name called] [or
such officer of the Corporation or
Government
company
as
may
be
authorised in that behalf by the Managing
Director or the Chairman] thereof, and in
the case of a banking company, the local
agent thereof, by whatever name called
may send a certificate, to the Collector,
mentioning the sum due from such person
and requesting that such sum together with
costs of the proceedings be recovered as if
it were an arrear of land revenue.

(2) The Collector on receiving the
certificates shall proceed to recover the
amount stated therein as an arrear of land
revenue."

It would, thus, be clear that for the
purpose of recovery of dues as arrears of
land revenue, there must be an agreement
relating to a loan, advance or grant and if
there be a default of payment of any
installment thereof, then said amount
defaulted can be recovered as arrears of
land
revenue.
In
the
instant
case,
respondent no.3 has not given any loan,
advance or grant to the petitioner, nor is
related to credit in respect of, or relating to
hire-purchase of goods sold by a Banking
Company or a Government Company
under the State-sponsored scheme. Thus, it
will be clear that the recovery certificate
issued by respondent no.3 for recovery of
the amount in terms of the Act 1890 is
clearly without jurisdiction and without
authority of law and, consequently,
respondents 1 and 2 could not have acted
on the same. The recovery citation,
therefore, issued by respondent no.2 is
without jurisdiction.

6. In the light of that, the petition
deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly,
allowed in terms of prayers Clauses (A)
and (B), which read as under:-

"(A) A writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari may kindly be issued
quashing the recovery certificate dated
21.06.2010 issued by the respondent no.3
and recovery citation dated 06.09.2010
issued by the respondent no.2, copies
whereof have been filed herewith as
Annexure No. 1 and 2 respectively.

(B) A writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus may kindly be issued
commanding the respondents not to
proceed to recover any amount from the
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
petitioner as arrears of land revenue in
pursuance of the recovery certificate dated
21.06.2010 issued by the respondent no.3
and recovery citation dated 06.09.2010
issued by the respondent no.2, copies
whereof have been filed herewith as
Annexure No.1 and 2 respectively."

7. In the circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to cost.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.21559 of 2002

Smt. Indrawati Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Surya Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
Sri Dev Shankar Shukla

Arm Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 Section34-Petition relating to grievance of
Service matter-Cause of action-certainly
falls within jurisdiction of Tribunal-Writ
Petition stood transferred before the
tribunal-under section 34 of the Act.

Held: Para 6

In view of this, it has been laid down
that the Writ Petitions pending before
this Court, wherein, the cause of action
is
such
as
would
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Tribunal
after
enforcement
of
the
Armed
Forces
Tribunal
Act,
2007,
would
stand
transferred
to
the
Tribunal
for
adjudication in view of Section 34 of the
said Act.
Case law discussed:
2010 (4) ADJ 251 (DB), Special Appeal
Defective No. 218 of 2006

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. Case called out in the revised list.

2. None is present for the petitioner.

Sri Dev Shankar Shukla, learned
counsel for the respondents is present.

3. The present Writ Petition has
been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia,
praying
for
payment
of
suitable
compensation as well as for Special
Family Pension and Children Allowance
according to the relevant Rules with effect
from the date of desertion order dated 1612-1988, and further for quashing the
dismissal order dated 28-04-1992 in
respect of the husband of the petitioner,
namely, Nand Kishore Singh, who was
serving in Armoured Corps and was
posted in 43 Arm Regiment C/o 56 APO.

4. Thus, the subject matter of the
Writ Petition pertains to service matter in
respect of the husband of the petitioner
who was a member of the Armed Forces
covered by the Army Act, 1950.

5. In Dev Saran Mishra Vs. Union
of India and others, 2010 (3) A.D.J. 593
(paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27), a
learned Single Judge of this Court has
considered in detail the provisions of the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 in the
light of various judicial decisions, and has
held that in case the cause of action
involved in a Writ Petition is such as falls
within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
after enforcement of the Armed Forces