# Vipin Verma v. The Collector District Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 1 ILRA 73
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-01-20
- **Case number:** Misc. Bench No. 11783 of 2015
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vipin-verma-v-the-collector-district-lucknow-ors-43460
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Recovery
from amount of compensation-accident
by private vehicle-playing by U.P. State
Transport Corporation by reliance upon
clause 10 of agreement-issuing citation
under Rule 236 and Section 282 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-without being any
provision under agreement-recovery can
not be enforced through Collector as
arrears of land revenue.
Held: Para-9
We are not entering into the merits of
the claim and the counter claim relating
to the extent of liability which is now
sought
to
be
recovered
from
the
petitioner but the mode of recovery in
our opinion does not conform to Clause10 of the aforesaid agreement. The
recovery from the petitioner as arrears
of land revenue on a recovery certificate
issued by the UPSRTC without therebeing any provision under the agreement
was, therefore, not enforceable through
the Collector by the Tehsildar and as
such this mode of recovery cannot be
approved of.
Case Law discussed:
F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2001; 2011 Volume 8 SCC
pg. 42.

## Text

1 All. Vipin Verma Vs. The Collector District Lucknow & Ors.
73
proceedings, the process of the court and
the law has been abused. .
13. The court has been informed that
investigation had been concluded and no
further evidence is likely to come on
record to draw a different conclusion as
drawn above.
14. This court also takes judicial
notice of the fact that the prosecuting
agency and the courts are heavily
burdened with cases. Cases of this nature
if are brought to trial would burden the
judicial system, unnecessarily.
15. Considering the law, as laid
down in Ch. Bhajan Lal's case(supra) and
Shaheen Parveeen(supra), portion from
which has been extracted above, this
petition is allowed. Impugned First
Information Report, lodged as Case Crime
No.239 of 2015, under Section 363 I.P.C.,
Police
Station
Naseerabad,
District
Raebareli, is hereby quashed.
16.
Let a copy of this order be
conveyed to the Court concerned as also to
the Superintendent of Police, Raebareli
through Senior Registrar of the Court and
learned Additional Government Advocate.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
Misc. Bench No. 11783 of 2015
Vipin Verma
 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Collector District Lucknow & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manish Mathur, Vaibhav Srivastava
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Chandra Shekhar Pandey
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Recovery
from amount of compensation-accident
by private vehicle-playing by U.P. State
Transport Corporation by reliance upon
clause 10 of agreement-issuing citation
under Rule 236 and Section 282 of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act-without being any
provision under agreement-recovery can
not be enforced through Collector as
arrears of land revenue.
Held: Para-9
We are not entering into the merits of
the claim and the counter claim relating
to the extent of liability which is now
sought
to
be
recovered
from
the
petitioner but the mode of recovery in
our opinion does not conform to Clause10 of the aforesaid agreement. The
recovery from the petitioner as arrears
of land revenue on a recovery certificate
issued by the UPSRTC without therebeing any provision under the agreement
was, therefore, not enforceable through
the Collector by the Tehsildar and as
such this mode of recovery cannot be
approved of.
Case Law discussed:
F.A.F.O. No. 199 of 2001; 2011 Volume 8 SCC
pg. 42.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)
1.
Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey,
learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and
4 as well the learned Standing Counsel for
the respondent nos. 1 and 2 .
2. The impugned recovery is sought
to be made from the petitioner through a
citation dated 24.11.2015 issued by the
74
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Tehsildar, , in Form No. 69 under Rule
236 read with Section 282 of the U.P. Z.A
& L.R. Act 1950 and the rules frame
thereunder.
3. Apart from the liability being
denied by the petitioner, who is the owner
of the vehicle, the petitioner contends that
the recovery which is sought to be made
from him is not in accordance with law
and even otherwise it cannot be recovered
as arrears of land revenue through a
process under which the impugned
citation has been issued.
4.
We had earlier called upon the
learned counsel for the Corporation to
produce the copy of the agreement under
which the said recovery is being attempted
by the Corporation. Sri Chandra Shekhar
Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents
has produced a copy of agreement and
Clause 10 thereof as reads as follows-:
"Pkkyd dh fdlh =qfV] vlko/kkuh nq?kZVuk ;k
vU; voS/k dk;ksZa dk iw.kZ nkf;Ro f}rh; i{k dk
gksxk rFkk bl lEca/k esa fdlh Hkh izfrdj ;k vU;
ns; /kujkf'k ds Hkqxrku dk nkf;Ro cl Lokeh ;k
vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr chek dEiuh dk gksxkA fdlh
Hkh voLFkk es pkyd dh =qfV vlko/kkuh nq?kZVuk ;k
voS/k dk;Z dk nkf;Ro izFke i{k dk ugha gksxkA ;fn
fdlh U;k;ky; vkfn ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa izFke
i{k }kjk dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks rks f}rh; i{k
ds ns;dksa ls ;k vU; fof/k;ksa ls izFke i{k
O;olkf;d nj ij C;kt olwyh djus ds fy,
vf/kd`r gksxkA "
5. Admittedly, the vehicle of the
petitioner under the aforesaid agreement
with the UPSRTC was plying when an
accident occurred and as a result of the
Motor Accident Claim, arising therefrom,
the liability was fixed which is now
sought to be recovered from the owner,
keeping in view Clause 10 of the
aforesaid agreement.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment
in the case of United India Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs U.P.S.R.T.C, Sapru Marg,
Lucknow in F.A.F.O 199 of 2001 and other
connected appeals decided on 18.09.2009, to
urge that such liability cannot be fixed on the
petitioner nor recovered from him and it has
to be borne by the Corporation itself.
7. It is also urged that the said
judgment had been taken up in Appeal
before the Apex Court and the SLP has
been dismissed.
8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, on the other hand has relied
on the judgment in the Case of
U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kulsum and Ors, 2011
Volume 8 SCC pg.42 to contend
otherwise.
9. We are not entering into the merits
of the claim and the counter claim relating to
the extent of liability which is now sought to
be recovered from the petitioner but the
mode of recovery in our opinion does not
conform to Clause-10 of the aforesaid
agreement.The recovery from the petitioner
as arrears of land revenue on a recovery
certificate issued by the UPSRTC without
there-being
any
provision
under
the
agreement was, therefore, not enforceable
through the Collector by the Tehsildar and as
such this mode of recovery cannot be
approved of.
10. Consequently, we quash the
citation dated 24.11.2015 as well as the
recovery proceedings which have been
initiated as arrears of Land Revenue under
the U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act, 1950.
11. It shall be, however, open to the
Corporation to take recourse to such other
1 All. Suresh Bansal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
75
legal remedy which may be available to it
under the agreement for the said purpose.
12. With these observations, the writ
petition is allowed.
-------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KRISHNA MURARI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAGHVENDRA KUMAR, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 30909 of 2014
Suresh Bansal & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
M.D. Singh "Shekhar", B.P. Verma
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Rajesh Tripathi, Fuzail Ahmand
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Rejection of
application-to
sanction
map
without
assigning any reason-held-unsustainablerecording
reasons
when
necessary
explained.
Held: Para-9
No doubt, the concerns of the security of
the country is supreme, but the petitioner,
as a citizen of this country, in the least is
entitled for a reasoned order, in case, his
claim was liable to be rejected. Though, the
respondent authorities have tried to justify
the rejection by setting out some reasons in
the counter affidavit, but it is well settled
that the reasons should be reflected from
the order and no amount of reasons
supplemented in the affidavits filed during
judicial review of the action, can justify the
same.
Case Law discussed:
AIR 1952 SC 16; (1978) 1 SCC 405; (2013) 10
SCC 95
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.)
1. Heard Shri B.P. Verma, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajesh
Tripathi for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
2. Petitioners have approached this
Court challenging the letter dated 15th
March, 2014 communicated to him by the
office of the City Magistrate, Mathura
that Military authorities have refused to
grant
No
Objection
Certificate
for
construction of multi-storied building
adjacent to A-1 defence land.
3. Petitioners claiming to be
bhoomidhar of plot nos. 228, 229, 230,
231, 234 and 235 situate in Gram
Narhauli, Tehsil Sadar, District Mathura
after seeking a declaration under Section
143 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, which
was duly granted vide order dated 20th
June, 2003, started some constructions
over the said land, which was objected by
the officers of the Station Headquarter,
Mathura Cantt. and they forcibly stopped
the construction for want of No Objection
Certificate from the army authorities.
Petitioners made an application dated
27.10.2011 before the City Magistrate for
obtaining No Objection Certificate from
the Station Headquarter, Mathura Cantt.
in accordance with the guidelines issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of
Defence dated 18th May, 2011.
4. However, when no decision was
taken despite various communication and
letters, the petitioners approached this
Court by filing Writ Petition No. 37904 of
2013, which was disposed of vide order
dated 16.07.2013 requiring the petitioner
to make a fresh representation before the
competent authority, who in turn, was
directed to take appropriate decision with