Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2682 (ALL)

R. K. INDUSTRIES v. UTTAR PRADESH VITTA NIGAM

2010-09-01

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants. 2. A recovery certificate of Rs. 3,90,658.50/- was issued by the District Collector, Shahjahanpur on 22.2.1995 against the plaintiffs/appellants so as to recover the outstanding dues of the U.P. Vitta Nigam Ltd. 3. The plaintiffs/appellants instituted a suit to declare the aforesaid recovery as null and void and further for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from recovering the aforesaid amount. The suit was decreed by the Court of first instance vide judgment and order dated 28.2.1998. 4. In appeal preferred by the defendant/respondent, the lower appellate Court after reversing the finding of the Court of first instance on issue Nos. 6 and 7 held that the suit is barred by Section 3 of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972 as well as Section 330 (c) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. 5. Aggrieved the plaintiffs/appellants has preferred this appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants is that as the proper procedure prescribed for issuance of recovery was not followed, therefore, the suit is not barred and is maintainable. He is however, unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in following the procedure for issuing the aforesaid recovery. 6. It is well settled that once a recovery certificate has been issued by the Collector for recovery of any amount as arrears of land revenue, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by Section 330 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act which provides that no suit shall lie in any Civil Court in respect of the assessment or collection of land revenue or the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 7. Apart from the above, Section 287-A of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act provides that where recovery of any arrears of land revenue or for the sum of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue is issued, the person against whom such a recovery is issued may pay the amount under protest and sue the State Government in the Civil Court for the amount so paid. Thus payment/deposit of the amount sought to be recovered under protest is a condition precedent for instituting a suit in the civil Court otherwise the suit shall stand barred Section 330 (c) of the Act. 8. Thus payment/deposit of the amount sought to be recovered under protest is a condition precedent for instituting a suit in the civil Court otherwise the suit shall stand barred Section 330 (c) of the Act. 8. In the case of Gopal Ji v. Krishi Uttpadan Mandi Samiti and others, 1996 (1) AWC 370 his lordship of this Court while dealing with the recovery of dues under the U.P. Krishi Uttpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 held that by reason of Sections 287-A and 330(c) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, the civil suit for injunction against the recovery stand clearly barred. 9. Similarly Section 3 of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972 provides that no suit for recovery of any sum due as arrears of land revenue under an agreement relating to loan guarantee or of such nature shall lie in Civil Court. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanad Kumar Niranjan and others v. Collector Jalaun, 1997 (2) AWC 2.201 (NOC) held that in respect of the amount due to the bank covered by Section 3 of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972, the suit is barred by Section 3(3) of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act 1972. 10. Even the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 which provides for the recovery of certain sums as arrears of land revenue by Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 stipulates that if a person against whom such a recovery is issued denies his liability, he may deposit the amount under protest and institute a suit for repayment of the amount. Therefore, deposit of the amount sought to be recovered under protest has again been made a condition precedent for instituting a civil suit failing which the jurisdiction of the Civil Court would stand impliedly excluded. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in dealing with a maintainability of a civil suit against recovery without depositing any amount under protest in the case of Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited, New Delhi v. State of U.P. and others, 1995 AWC (1) 443 held that the civil suit is not maintainable in view of Section 4 of Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. 12. 12. In view of above legal position, I am of the opinion that the civil suit in respect of recovery which has been issued against the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of outstanding loan amount as arrears of land revenue is not only barred by Section 287-A read with 330 (c) of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act but also by the provisions of Section 3(3) of the U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890. It is not the case of the plaintiffs/appellants that any amount was deposited by him under protest or that his case falls within any of the recognized exceptions to the rule of explicit or implied exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Accordingly, I am of the view that the lower appellate Court has not committed any error of law in dismissing the suit as not maintainable and barred in law. No substantial question of law, as proposed in the memo of appeal, arises. The appeal as such has no merit and is dismissed.