Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal learned Counsel appear ing for the petitioners, Shri Krishna Murari learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Shri A. K. Shukla learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. At the outset, Shri Rajesh Kumar Agrawal learned Counsel for the petitioners, states that instant petition be treated to be confined to the prayer No. (iii) only.

3. The prayer of the petitioner is that" the respondents No. 1 to 4 be restrained from insisting payment of an amount equivalent to 10 per cent of the money sought to be recovered under the citation dated 28th August, 1991.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under the relevant rules, namely, 255 and 259 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952, collection charges can be recovered at the rate of Rs. 3. 75 only, and not more than that. In support of his contention the learned

Counsel cites the Division Bench decision of this Court, dated 20th January, 1992, rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 4307 of 1981, M/s. Chemopulp Tissues Limited v. State of U. P. and others.

5. Neither Shri A. K. Shukla learned Standin