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