Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala, J.—All these bunch cases involving common question of law are being decided together.

2. The facts of each writ petition are as hereunder :

(1) Writ Petition No. 31782 of 1992 :

3. The order impugned in the writ petition is the citation dated 31.8.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). A contract for realisation of Tehbazari dues for the financial year 1990-91 was granted to the petitioner the highest bidder for Rs. 2,85,000/-. The petitioner entered into an agreement. The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 85,000/- remained outstanding towards the contract in question which is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The contention of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 291 of the U.P. Municipalities Act are not applicable. According to the petitioner the contract money cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

(2) Writ Petition No. 807 of 1993 :

5. The orders impugned are dated 30.4.1990 and 22.5.1990 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby directing the recovery of remaining amount of the contract for realisation of Tehbazari dues arrears of land revenue. In a public auction held on 24.4.1989 for the contract of realization of tax/fee from operators of motors, trucks stage carriage, tampo, taxi and other vehicles stopping at Shah stoppage at Tehsil Fatehpur District Fatehpur, the petitioner’s bid of Rs. 1,50,000/-being the highest, the contract for the year 1989-90 was granted to him. The operators of the tampo, taxi, stage carriage etc. filed Writ Petition No. 1048 of 1989 Fatehpur Tampo Taxi Samiti v. Zila Parishad and another and vide order dated 2.8.1989 passed therein the Zila Parishad and another were restrained from realizing any fee for picking up and getting down the passengers from national highway. The petitioner has alleged that due to the stay order of this Court he was deprived of realizing the fee from the operators of the bus, mini trucks, tampo, taxi etc. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ out of the bid amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-The petitioner having failed to deposit remaining amount despite demand, the impugned recovery certificate for realisation of the amount as arrears of land revenue was issued.

6. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavit denying that the assertions of the petitioner that he could not realise the fee or tax under the contract. According to them the number of receipt books issued to the petitioner increased three times after the grant of stay order by this Court.

(5) Writ Petition No. 9630 of 1994 :

7. The petitioner seeks writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the recovery certificate dated 31.1.1994 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 2. the contention of the petitioner is that in a public auction held on 27.2.1986 for the contract of disposal of dead animals in Block Moradabad, the petitioner’s bid for Rs. 01,07,000/-being the highest, the contract for the year 1986-87 was granted to him. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The remaining amount was not deposited as the Zila Parishad did not issue work order. The petitioner’s prayer for the refund of Rs. 50,000/- was also turned down and recovery certificate for realisation of remaining amount of auction bid as arrears of land revenue was issued. The contention of the petitioner is that the said amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

8. The respondents in their counter affidavit have admitted the grant of contract to the petitioner. According to the respondents the petitioner having committed default in the payment of remaining amount of contract, the recovery certificate was issued. The respondents have stated that the petitioner carried out the work under the licence during the entire period of licence.

(4) Writ Petition No. 22665 of 1995