SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 743

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PALOK BASU, M. C. AGARWAL, JJ.
MAHESH CHANDRA - Appellant
Versus
ZILA PANCHAYAT, MAINPURI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 14345 Of 1996
Decided On : 07/08/1996

Advocates Appeared:
B.D.Maurya, BANGALI YADAV, N.S.CHAUDHARY

An agreement between the parties to recover dues as arrears of land revenue is void if it is not authorized by statute and defeats the provisions of any law.

Headnote:

REVENUE RECOVERY - ZILA PANCHAYAT - RECOVERY OF DUES - LAND REVENUE - AGREEMENT TO RECOVER DUES AS ARREARS OF LAND REVENUE - VALIDITY - INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 - SECTIONS 10, 23.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner challenged a recovery certificate issued against him for the recovery of Rs. 51,000.00, claiming that the Zila Panchayat did not issue a license to him for the removal and disposal of dead animals, and therefore, he could not collect and dispose of the dead animals. The Zila Panchayat contended that the petitioner was allowed to carry out the job of collection and disposal of dead animals and was bound to pay the balance of the license fee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner actually availed of the right to collect and dispose of dead animals was a question of fact that could not be determined in the writ petition. The court also found that the sum of Rs. 51,000.00 was not a tax or rent as referred to in the relevant sections of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, and therefore, could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

Issues: 1. Whether the dues in respect of the license fee can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. Whether an agreement between the parties to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue is valid.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that only arrears of tax on circumstances and property and rent in respect of land vested in or entrusted to the management of the Zila Panchayat can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 2. The court held that the alleged agreement between the parties to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue was void being hit by Sections 10 and 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and by virtue of the statutory provisions, the Collector had no authority to recover as arrears of land revenue a revenue which was not statutorily so but was agreed by private agreement to be treated as land revenue.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the recovery certificate issued against the petitioner.

M. C. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Mahesh Chandra Challenges a recovery certificate issued against him for the recovery of Rs. 51,000. 00. A copy of the recovery certificate has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 4 which mentions that the money may be recovered under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act.

( 2 ) THE petitioner participated in an auction by Zila Panchayat, Mainpuri for settling a right to remove and dispose of dead animals within the limits of block kurawali in district panchayat Mainpuri. The petitioners bid at Rs. 1,51,000/was highest and was accepted. He deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000. 00 on the date of auction i. e. 221-1995, Rs. 20,000. 00 on 7-3-1995, Rs. 35,000. 00 on 21-3-1995 and Rs. 25,000. 00 on 22-7-1995. The period of licence was to be for one year from 1-41995 to 31-3-1996. The petitioners case is that in spite of the petitioners bid having been accepted and he having paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 out of the total bid amount of Rs. 1,51,000. 00 no licence in the prescribed form was actually issued to him and, therefore, he could not collect and dispose of the dead animals. According to him this work was got done by Zila Panchayat through its own employees. He is aggrieved by the steps taken by Zila Panchayat for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 51,000. 00 and claims that since the Zila Panchayat did not issue the licence it is not entitled to recover the balance and should in law refund the money paid by the petitioner. According to him the recovery of the balance of the bid money as arrears of land revenue is illegal.

( 3 ) IN its counter affidavit the Zila Panchayat has contended that on his request the petitioner was allowed to pay the bid money in instalments and that the formal licence in the prescribed form was not issued because the entire bid money was not paid but the petitioner was in fact permitted to carry out the job of collection and disposal of dead animals. It has filed a copy of the letter written by its president to the petitioner, copy whereof endorsed to the station House Officer, Police Station Kurawali permitting the petitioner to carry out the aforesaid job. Its case is that the petitioner actually availed all the rights granted under the licence for which auction was held and is bound to pay the balance of the licence fee i. e. Rs. 51,000. 00. It has annexed with the counter affidavit a copy of auction notice which requires the licensee to execute a written duly stamped contract and further says that any arrears may be recovered by the attachment and sale of the movable and immovable properties of the defaulter as arrears of land revenue.

( 4 ) SINCE counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties we heard the writ petition finally on merits at the admission stage itself. Sri B. D. Maurya, Advocate represented the petitioner while the respondent was represented by Sri Bengali Yadav, Advocate.

( 5 ) AS stated above, there is dispute between the parties as to whether the petitioner actually availed of the right to collect and dispose of dead animals for which his highest bid was accepted by the respondent and for which the petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as mentioned above. This is a dispute question of fact and, therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is not feasible to determine this dispute which is of pure fact and depends for its determination on oral and documentary evidence which can appropriately be decided only in other judicial proceedings like a suit. We, therefore, decline to go into this aspect of the matter leaving the parties to agitate it imappropriate forum. The only other point agitated between the parties was whether the dues in respect of the licence fee can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

( 6 ) ZILA Panchayats have been established under the U. P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Pa















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top