Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 862 (ALL)

Mumtyaj Ahmad v. The Collector

2011-04-04

RAJESH CHANDRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2011
JUDGMENT The present Writ Petition has been filed making the following prayer: "i) a writ, order or direction in the mature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner in pursuance of the citation dated 29.1.2011 (Annexure No.5) issued by the respondent no.2. ii) a writ, order or direction in the mature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the citation dated 29.1.2011 (Annexure No.5) issued by the respondent no.2. iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. iv) Award cost of this petition to the petitioner." 2. It appears that the petitioner took loan for purchasing Tempo from the respondent no.3 - State Bank of India. As per the averments made in paragraph 3 of the Writ Petition, the loan was a commercial loan. The petitioner committed default in payment of the loan. Consequently, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner for recovering the amount, due from the petitioner, as arrears of land revenue. Citation dated 29.1.2011 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) has been issued in this regard. 3. We have heard Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.? 4. By the order dated 23.3.2011, Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 was given time to obtain instructions. 5. Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has stated today that he has received instructions in the matter, and as per the said instructions, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovering the amount due as arrears of land revenue have been initiated under mistake as the loan being commercial loan, the same cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Shri P.K. Tripathi further states that the respondent no.3 is withdrawing the Recovery Certificate for recovering the amount due from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. 6. In view of the statement made by Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, no cause of action survives in the matter, and no further orders are required to be passed. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. 6. In view of the statement made by Shri P.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, no cause of action survives in the matter, and no further orders are required to be passed. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 8. It is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondent no.3 - State Bank of India to take such action as may be open to it under law for recovering the amount due from the petitioner.