JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioners. (ii) Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. On 18th January, 2012, this Court while entertaining the present writ petition passed following orders: “The District Magistrate, Basti must file his personal affidavit categorically stating as to how a sum of Rs. 70,000/- has been recovered towards collection charges when in fact the loan money has been deposited under the order of the High Court in installments and no recovery proceedings which could justify realization of such huge amount had been undertaken. The bank may also inform as to how it has debited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in the account of the petitioner. Put up as unlisted on 2.2.2012 with the name of Shri S.K. Kakkar as counsel for the Bank.” On 17th February, 2012, this Court had passed an order as under: “A sum of Rs. 70,000/- was realized towards recovery charges from the petitioner in respect of agricultural loan advanced in his favour. According to the petitioner the loan amount was repaid under the orders passed by the High Court and in fact no recovery proceedings had been taken. This Court required the District Magistrate to explain as to why such a huge sum of money has been realized as recovery charges from the poor farmer. The District Magistrate has filed an affidavit today stating therein that it was the Branch Manager who had written a letter disclosing that the Tehsildar had recovered the sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- from the farmer, therefore, collection charges to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- are being remitted to the Government amount. The affidavit filed by the District Magistrate does not disclose any proceedings having been taken under the provisions of the UPZA&LR Act or under the Land Revenue Act which could justify such huge amount of recovery charges. 7,70,000/- from the farmer, therefore, collection charges to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- are being remitted to the Government amount. The affidavit filed by the District Magistrate does not disclose any proceedings having been taken under the provisions of the UPZA&LR Act or under the Land Revenue Act which could justify such huge amount of recovery charges. Counsel for the bank made an statement that since the money was recovered by the Tehsildar, 10% of the total money recovered has been transmitted as collection charges. The stand taken by the bank and the District Magistrate both prima facie disclose an attempt to harass the poor farmer. However, before any further orders are passed, the District Magistrate may appear before this Court with copies of all relevant records for disclosing as to what actual steps were taken by the district authorities including the Tehsildar on the basis whereof such huge sum of Rs. 70,000/- is stated to have been realized as collection charges.” 4. In compliance to the order of this Court dated 17th February, 2012, today the District Magistrate, who is present in the Court today, has filed an affidavit. 5. In the affidavit filed by the District Magistrate, it has been stated that only a recovery certificate was issued under Section 11-A of the U.P. Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1973’) by the Bank. The Tehsildar started proceedings for recovery in terms thereof from the borrower and for the purpose, the Collection Amin wrote a letter dated 20th August, 2010 for issuance of the citation under Section 280 (1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950'). On the aforesaid, the Tehsildar issued a citation for appearance on 2nd September, 2010 and the Collection Amin went to the residence of the borrowers to serve the citation. Citation was served upon the petitioner Rudra Nath. However, Dhruv Chandra refused to accept the citation. The money was not deposited and therefore, the Collection Amin wrote a letter to the concerned Tehsildar for issuing the arrest warrant under Section 281 of Act, 1950. Accordingly arrest warrant was issued. 6. At this stage, the borrowers approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2011. The money was not deposited and therefore, the Collection Amin wrote a letter to the concerned Tehsildar for issuing the arrest warrant under Section 281 of Act, 1950. Accordingly arrest warrant was issued. 6. At this stage, the borrowers approached this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2011. The writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to deposit the money in installments vide order dated 1st February, 2011. The money was paid in terms of the order of the High Court to the Bank. The Tehsildar however, states that the order of the High Court has not been complied with fully. 7. This is the explanation of the District Magistrate for recovering a huge sum of money i.e. Rs. 70,000/- as collection charges from the borrowers. For the purpose the District Magistrate records that there is a Government Order dated 30th July, 2002 issued by the Principal Secretary (Finance), Government of U.P. at Lucknow and an order of the Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow dated 4th February, 1976 and another Government Order dated 11th June, 1996 as also a Government Order dated 12th November, 2001, which records that once recovery proceedings have been initiated then the revenue department becomes entitled to get 10% of the total amount sought to be recovered as collection charges. 8. This Court has examined the Government issued by the Principal Secretary dated 30th July, 2002, which reads as follows: Þvf/klwpuk jktLo olwyh ¼mRrj izns’k la’kks/ku½ vfèkfu;e] 2001 ¼mRrj izns’k vf/kfu;e la[;k&37 lu~ 2001½ dh /kkjk 3 ds mi[k.M ¼3 d½ ds vèkhu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky bl vfèklwpuk ds ek/;e ls Hkw jktLo ds cdk;s ds :i esaa olwyh ds iz;kstu ds fy;s olwyh ds [kpsZ dh jde olwyh izek.k&i= esa dfFkr jde dh nl izfr’kr èkujkf’k laxzg izHkkj ds :i esa fy;s tkus gsrq izkf/kd`r djrs gSaaAÞ 9. The Government Order dated 4th July, 1976 records that if the recovery citation has been issued and even if the money is deposited directly by the borrower yet the State Government becomes entitled for recovery of the collection charges. 10. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that such Government Orders virtually amount to uncalled for recovery of the money from a poor farmer, who has taken loan for agriculture purposes. 10. Prima facie this Court is of the opinion that such Government Orders virtually amount to uncalled for recovery of the money from a poor farmer, who has taken loan for agriculture purposes. The Government Order authorises to recover the money from the borrower for meeting expenses incurred inasmuch as under Government Order there is use of word “[kpsZ”. 11. In my opinion unless the State-authorities are able to demonstrate on facts that such expenses had been incurred by them, for realization of money, the recovery of 10% of the total outstanding dues as collection charges from a poor farmer, they would be exorbitant and totally arbitrary. 12. The action of the District Magistrate in the facts of the present case, where only letters were written and citation has been issued without resorting to any further action for the property of borrower being put to auction or arrest etc. of the borrowers, the recovery of Rs. 70,000/- as collection charges in the facts of the case cannot be sustained. 13. Reference may be had to the judgment of Hon. R.R. K. Trivedi, J. in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1201 , which on reference being made to a third Judge has been accepted to have laid down the correct law in the case of Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (2) AWC 1218 . 14. Accordingly this Court holds that the District Magistrate shall immediately refund the said sum of Rs. 70,000/- to the Bank. The money shall be adjusted against loan amount of the petitioners, over and above the same, the District Magistrate shall also pay interest at the rate of 10% on the money so realized by him for the period such Rs. 70,000/- was retained by him. 15. After adjusting the money so recovered from the District Magistrate, the Bank shall prepare fresh statement of account and take all necessary action in accordance thereto. 16. The present writ petition is allowed. ——————