By the Court.—Finding conflict in the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court, namely Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB) and Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB), the learned Single Judge has referred the following question for decision by a Larger Bench.

“Whether decision in Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(4) ADJ 390 (DB) in so far as it takes the view that there is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charges for mere issuance of citation or sale proclamation is correct; or, the decision in Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(6) ADJ 302 (DB) holding that provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 279 do not contain any provision for an absolute waiver of recovery charges where the citation has been issued under sub-section (1) and the charging Section empowers the Collector to raise such demand subject to the rules and provision of Revenue Recovery Act U.P. Act No. 37 of 2001, is correct.”

Brief facts of the case :

2. The petitioners had taken an agricultural loan for the purchase of a tractor from U.P. Sahkari Bank Ltd., Rath, district Hamirpur, respondent No. 4. When the loan was not paid a recovery certificate was sent by the respondent No. 4 to the District Magistrate, Hamirpur for its realisation. Pursuant thereto the Tehsildar, respondent No. 3 issued a citation on 23rd January, 2011 calling upon the petitioner to appear and show-cause as to why the sum of Rs. 6,39,640/- be not recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 8158 of 2011 challenging the citation dated 23rd January, 2011. This Court vide judgment and order dated 11the February, 2011 disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the petitioners to deposit the amount in instalments. The Court observed that in case all the instalments are deposited as per the schedule, the petitioners may approach the Collector concerned for waiving of recovery charges and in the event of any such application being filed the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law by the authority concerned. In compliance of the order dated 11th February, 2011, the petitioners had deposited the entire dues with the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Bank and thereafter moved an application before the respondent No. 3 for waiving the collection charges. The District Magistrate, respondent No. 2, vide order dated 7th September, 2011 had rejected the application of the petitioners stating therein that the amount of Rs. 5,83,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners directly with respondent No. 4 Bank and accordingly, a sum of Rs. 58,300/- is recoverable as collection charges and there is no provision for waiving of collection charges. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7th September, 2011 passed by the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2 on the ground that the recovery charges can be recovered by the Revenue authorities only when the amount due has been recovered by them and not when the amount has been deposited directly with the bank and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 has illegally rejected the application for waiving the recovery charges. When the writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge finding conflict of opinion between the two Division Benches mentioned above, referred the aforementioned question for decision by a Larger Bench.

Law laid down by two Division Benches

Mange Ram and another (supra)

3. In Mange Ram’s case the Division has held as follows:

“There is no provision under any of the Acts for levying any collection charge for mere issuance of citation of sale proclamation. The cost of these items have been taken adequate care in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules and as such there is no scope fo