Point of Law
Only taxes imposed under the Municipalities Act, and Town Area Act can be recovered as arrears of land revenue, we are of the opinion that the amount in question cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the recovery certificate as well as the citation are liable to be quashed.

JUDGMENT :

PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Javed Hasain Khan, for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel, for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the recovery certificate dated 24.8.2019 issued by Upper Mukha Adhikari, Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra as well as recovery citation dated 0.1.2019 issued by Tehsildar Chunar, District Mirzapur, on the ground that there is no provision under UP Kshetra Samiti and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961, to recover the contractual amount as arrears of land revenue.

3. Brief facts of the case is that in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 4.7.2015 issued by Adhyaksh and Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Zila Panchayat Sonebhadra and published in daily ‘Aaj’ dated 7.7.2015 for awarding contract of realizing Parivahan Shulk for the year 2015-16, the petitioner submitted his tender and was a successful bidder of the price of Rs. 8 crores. In pursuance thereof an agreement was executed on 20.7.2015 between the petitioner and Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra.

4. It has been averred that neither at the time of advertisement dated 4.7.2015/7.7.2015 nor at the time of entering into the contract dated 20.7.2015, the respondents informed the petitioner that validity of the by-laws of Zila Panchayat, Sonebhadra was under challenged by several persons whereby the realization of Pariwahan Shulka was stayed. In view of the pendency of litigation at various stages i.e. before this Court as well as before the Apex Court, the company as well as the firms did not pay the prescribed Pariwahan Shulka to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not realize the same.

5. It is further averred that somehow, the petitioner deposited the first instalment of Rs. 01 crore and security deposit of Rs. 25 lakh, which was to be adjusted in the last instalment. Thereafter another two instalments, firstly on 30.9.2015, the petitioner deposited Rs. 3.50 crore along with tax of Rs.7 lakhs and additional tax of Rs. 14,000/-and the other on 31.12.2015, deposited Rs. 3.25 crores along with tax of Rs. 07 lakhs and additional tax of Rs. 14,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 26.12.2015, Upper Mukhaya Adhikari wrote a letter to the petitioner for deposit of remaining amount of Parivahan Shulk within three days and in case of default the loss caused to the Zila Panchayat would be realized from the petitioner. In response thereto, the petitioner sent a reply dated 5.1.2016 to the Upper Mukha Adhikari in which it has been submitted that the petitioner was not informed by Zila Panchayat about the pending litigation, therefore, different companies are neither paying the tax nor cooperating with the petitioner as such the petitioner could not collect the prescribed fee.

7. He further submitted that when the coercive action was taken against the petitioner by terminating the agreement by order dated 18.1.2016, a Writ Petition No. 3954 of 2016 was filed before this Court in which the pleadings have been exchanged but the same is still pending. In the meantime, the impugned recovery notice has been issued for realization of Rs. 3,26,21,116/-including 10 % collection charges as arrears of land revenue.

8. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly in pursuance of advertisement dated 7.7.2015 published in daily ‘Aaj’, the petitioner applied for contract of Pariwahan Shulk for the period 201516 and the petitioner was successful bidder, thus the contract was executed in favour of the petitioner on 20.7.2015. But neither at the time of advertisement nor at the time of execution of contract, Zila Parishad had intimated the petitioner that litigation in respect of validity of by-laws of Zila Parishad is pending as such the Parivahan Shulk cannot be realized. It is further submitted that in view of pending litigation, the Parivahan Shulk could not be realized and the sa