Allahabad High Court
Sumit Kumar Singh And Another ... vs U.P.State Agro Industries Corporation ... on 20 February, 2020
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 4 Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 3111 of 2006 Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar Singh and another Respondent :- U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhanshu Chauhan,Ashish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Singh Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Virendra Kumar-II,J.
1. Heard Sri N. K. Seth, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. The recovery in question relates to lease rent is challenged only on the ground that there is no agreement authorizing recovery of lease rent as arrears of land revenue and no provision in the statue also to do so.
3. When questioned, learned Standing Counsel also could not place any provision in the agreement permitting recovery/rent as arrears of land revenue and existence of any such statue.
4. Similar question was considered by this Court itself in Writ Petition No. 1619 (S/B) of 2012, U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. Through Managing Director and another Vs. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lucknow and another, decided on 05.05.2017, relating to recovery of some dues from an employee as arrears of land revenue. The judgment dated 05.05.2017 is being reproduced as under:
"1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners. None appeared on behalf of respondents though the case has been called in revised. Hence we proceed to decide this case after hearing learned counsel for petitioners.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against judgment and order dated 02.02.2011 passed by State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 2098 of 2009.
3. Punishment order was passed against claimant-respondent on 15.07.1999 and punishment of dismissal and recovery of Rs. 3,10,529.95 was imposed. It was also held that aforesaid amount can be recovered from outstanding dues and gratuity of claimant-respondent. Besides another order of punishment was passed on 08.09.2008 whereby recovery of Rs. 2,87,060.57 was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Both these orders were challenged in aforesaid Claim Petition which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment dated 02.02.2011.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that against order of punishment dated 15.07.1999, claim petition filed in 2009 was apparently barred by limitation hence order dated 15.07.1999 and 08.09.2008 could not have been set aside in the aforesaid claim petition.
5. So far as order dated 15.07.1999 is concerned, we find no hesitation in holding that claim petition in so far as it challenges aforesaid order was clearly barred by limitation which is one year under Section 5(1)(b)(i) of U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1976"). Now coming to the order dated 08.09.2008, it is evident that claimant-respondents were already terminated vide order dated 15.07.1999. By order dated 08.09.2008, petitioners intended to recover a sum of Rs. 28706.57 treating to be dues recoverable as arrears of land revenue under Section 3 of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972").
6. This recovery is patently illegal inasmuch as Act, 1972 has no application in the case in hand and therefore, order dated 08.09.2008 is patently without jurisdiction. We are fortified and would demonstrate the above view by referring relevant provisions and its discussion in the light of judicial precedents as under.
7. Section 3 of 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 given 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 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 installment 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 installment 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.
(3) No suit for the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie in the civil court against any person referred to in sub-section (1).
(4) In the case of any agreement referred to in sub-section (1) between any person referred to in that sub-section and the State Government or the Corporation, no arbitration proceedings shall lie at the instance of either party either for recovery of any sum claimed to be due under the said sub-section or for disputing the correctness of such claim:
Provided that whenever proceedings are taken against any person for the recovery of any such sum he may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may make a reference under or otherwise enforce an arbitration agreement in respect of the amount to be paid, and the provisions of Section 183 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, or Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such reference or enforcement as they apply in relation to any suit in the civil court.
(5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the proviso to sub-section (4) of this section or in Section 183 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 or Section 287-A of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 every certificate sent to the Collector under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application (including any application under the Arbitration Act, 1940) or in any reference to arbitration and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or intended to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act."
8. It shows that recovery of following nature can be effected thereunder:
(i) Where any person is a party to an agreement relating to loan, advance or grant etc. given to him by way of financial assistance.
(ii) Where a person is a party to an agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant etc. given under a State Sponsored Scheme,
(iii) Where a person is a party to an agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of the loan raised by the industrial concern, or
(iv) Where a person is a party to any agreement which provides that any money payable thereunder to the Slate Government or the Corporalion shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
9. It is not disputed before us that neither there was any agreement of loan etc. nor otherwise Section 3 of Act, 1972 is attracted in the case in hand.
10. This issue has been considered by Courts, time and again, and it has been held that only such amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Act, 1972 which is within the ambit of Section 3 and none else. Reference may be made to Division Bench decision of this Court in Anupam Sari Centre and others Vs. Collector, Padrauna and others, 1999(1) AWC 237; Full Bench decision of this Court in Sharda Devi Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2002 (All) 1; and, Apex Court's decision in A.P.T. Ispat (P) Ltd. Vs. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and another, 2010(3) AWC 3153( SC). We find that a similar view has also been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.) is a Member, in Writ-C No. 40635 of 2002 (M/s Suresh Chandra Varshney Vs. Rajkiya Audyogic Evam Krishi Pradarshani and others), decided on 26.05.2016.
11. In the result, writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 02.02.2011 passed by Tribunal so far as it has interfered and quashed punishment order dated 15.07.1999, it is barred by limitation hence to this extent, Tribunal's order dated 02.02.2011 is hereby set aside.
12. Claim Petition of claimant-respondent to the extent it challenges order dated 15.07.1999 in the year 2009 is dismissed as barred by limitation. So far as recovery order dated 08.09.2008 is concerned, same itself is without jurisdiction and as we have already discussed above, judgment of Tribunal to this extent is confirmed."
5. In view of the law laid down as aforesaid, writ petition is allowed and the recovery citation dated 15.05.2006 issued by respondent No. 4 and the recovery certificate dated 23.02.2006 issued by respondent No. 2 is set aside.
Order Date :- 20.2.2020 Arvind