JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a recovery certificate dated 23.9.2013 issed by respondent No. 5-Society for realization of lease rent due to it, amounting to Rs. 1,59,28,000/- as arrears of land revenue. Upon the recovery certificate issued by the respondent No. 5 - Society, the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, directed for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. Under the threat, the petitioner issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,75,20,800/- drawn at Canara Bank, Sahibabad, in favour of revenue authorities i.e. Tahsildar, Ghaziabad. The petitioner has prayed that the amount paid under duress be not utilized/transferred to respondent No. 5 - Society. 3. Facts giving rise to the dispute are as under: Respondent No. 5, Mohan Nagar Karamchari Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Ghaziabad is a housing cooperative society duly registered under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The said society owned a parcel of land situate at Prahaladgarhi (Mohan Nagar-New Delhi Link Road) at Ghaziabad. The said land was leased out to the petitioner for a period of 30 years as per the terms and conditions enumerated in the lease deed at a lease rent of Rs. 22 lacs per annum. A registered deed was executed on 12.10.2006 and it is alleged that the entire first year lease rent was paid in advance and that is how the petitioner came in possession over the land. 4. In the meantime, since the turn of the Committee of Management had expired and no fresh election has been done, a three member committee with Additional District Magistrate (F & R) was appointed as chairman/administrator to manage the affairs of the society. He issued a notice dated 28.1.2013 requiring the petitioner to pay entire outstanding lease rent alongwith 16% interest and to vacate the land, failing which the amount due shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The copy of the order was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police Station Indrapuram, with the direction that if the petitioner does not vacate the land in dispute within 7 days, sufficient police force be provided for obtaining forceful possession. 5. The copy of the order was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Police Station Indrapuram, with the direction that if the petitioner does not vacate the land in dispute within 7 days, sufficient police force be provided for obtaining forceful possession. 5. Petitioner challenged the notice/order dated 28.1.2013 by filing Writ Petition No. 7438 of 2013. On a concession given by the learned counsel appearing for the Administrator, recorded in the order, that he had neither any power nor authority to use force to obtain possession of the property in dispute. The part of the order pertaining to use of force for obtaining possession was set aside. Order dated 5.7.2013 passed by this Court reads as under : “This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Ghaziabd/Administrator, Mohan Nagar Karamchari Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad. It has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupant of the land in dispute. The petitioner has been directed to hand over possession of the property in dispute to the Secretary of the Society within the time mentioned in the said order and has been further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,59,28,000/- to the Society. It has been stated in the impugned order that in case the petitioner did not comply with the direction mentioned above, action would be taken to forcibly evict the petitioner from the property in dispute and a recovery certificate would be issued for recovery of the alleged outstanding amount from the petitioner. We have heard Sri Arvind Verma learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri H.R.Misra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri J.P.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Sri H.R. Misra, learned Senior Counsel fairly concedes that the Administrator had neither any power or authority to use force to obtain possession of the property in dispute. Accordingly the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Ghaziabad/Administrator Mohan Nagar Karmchari Sahkari Avas Simit Ltd., Ghaziabad insofar as it relates to use of force for obtaining possession of the property in dispute in the said order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. ” 6. Accordingly the order dated 28.1.2013 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar, Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Ghaziabad/Administrator Mohan Nagar Karmchari Sahkari Avas Simit Ltd., Ghaziabad insofar as it relates to use of force for obtaining possession of the property in dispute in the said order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed to the above extent. ” 6. After disposal of the writ petition, the Additional District Magistrate (F & R) in the capacity of Administrator issued a recovery certificate dated 23.9.2013 for realization of a sum of Rs. 1,59,28,000/- towards lease rent as arrears of land revenue due to the respondent No. 5, which is a private juristic person. Under coercion and threat of arrest the petitioner issued an account payee cheque in favour of Tahsildar for a sum of Rs. 1,75,20,800/- dated 19.10.2013 drawn on Canara Bank. The amount recovered from the petitioner was paid by the Collector, Ghaziabad to respondent No. 5. 7. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant petition. An issue with respect to maintainability was raised and considered by the Division Bench. Finding that this is a fresh cause of action while calling for a counter-affidavit an interim direction was issued on 30.10.2013 to the effect that amount recovered shall be kept in a fixed deposit in nationalized bank in interest bearing account, which shall not be utilized by the respondent No. 5. The said order is quoted hereunder : “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate has appeared for respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondent No. 4. Steps to be taken within one week. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that the recovery proceedings have initiated against the petitioner on the basis of order dated 23.9.2013 issued on behalf of Collector for recovering as arrears of land revenue, which is not permissible, since what is sought to be recovered is the amount of lease rent allegedly due on the petitioner of respondent No. 5. It is submitted that under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 it cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and at best it was open for respondent No. 5 to take steps for recovery permissible under the law. Mr. It is submitted that under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 it cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and at best it was open for respondent No. 5 to take steps for recovery permissible under the law. Mr. V.M. Zaidi, Senior Advocate submits that Administrator had earlier passed an order on 28.1.2013 directing for recovering the amount from the petitioner. Against which, a writ petition was filed being writ petition No. 7438 of 2013 and this Court had set aside only the part of the order dated 28.1.2013 by which a direction was issued that it relates to use of force for obtaining the possession of the property in question. In earlier writ petition No. 7438 of 2013 only the decision of Society was under challenge and in the present writ petition the challenge is the letter of Administrator containing the order of the Collector for initiation of recovery against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. A fresh cause of action has arisen. In the present writ petition, what is to be considered is as to whether the amount as determined by the Administrator can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Prima facie, such amount of lease rent is not recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Act, 1965. Petitioner has made out a case for grant of interim relief. Let a counter-affidavit be filed within three weeks. List on 2.12.2013 for admission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Collector after recovering the amount of Rs. 1,75,20,800/- has given a cheque in the name of respondent No. 5 on 28.10.2013 which may have been encashed by respondent No. 5. We direct that the amount so recovered shall be kept in a fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank in interest bearing account, which shall not be utilised by respondent No. 5.” 8. The order dated 5.7.2013, passed in Writ Petition No. 7438 of 2013 has no bearing, inasmuch as cause involved in the present writ petition is a fresh cause and was not subject-matter of challenge in the earlier petition as no recovery certificate had been issued at that point of time. The observation about issuance of recovery would necessarily imply such issuance of recovery certificate as is permitted under law. 9. The observation about issuance of recovery would necessarily imply such issuance of recovery certificate as is permitted under law. 9. Admittedly, the respondent No. 5- Mohan Nagar Karamchari Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad, is a cooperative society registered under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, is a private juristic person. The issue arising for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether the alleged amount of lease rent due to respondent No. 5-Society could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the dictates of the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. The argument of the petitioner is that an alleged amount of lease rent due to a private society was not open to be recovered resorting to coercion by state authorities, merely because a Government officer was acting as its administrator, in the absence of an elected office bearers of the Society. 10. Recovery as arrears of land revenue can be resorted only in the manner so permitted by law. Normally, the dues of the state/agencies of the state could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, to the extent it is so permitted by law. There is no provision of law which permits the dues of a society as lease rent to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 11. When the matter appeared before this Court on 14.7.2014, learned counsel appearing for the respondents conceded that the amount due towards lease rent cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Order dated 14.7.2014 is reproduced: “By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings on the ground that the lease rent allegedly due against him cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue at the behest of respondent No. 5, which is a Cooperative Society and a private juristic person. Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri D.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 has fairly conceded before us that any amount due towards the lease rent cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Learned Standing Counsel representing for the State-respondents also conceded that the recovery proceedings are patently illegal and the amount could not have been recovered as arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that under the interim order dated 30th October, 2013, the amount of Rs. Learned Standing Counsel representing for the State-respondents also conceded that the recovery proceedings are patently illegal and the amount could not have been recovered as arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that under the interim order dated 30th October, 2013, the amount of Rs. 1,75,20,800/-, which was recovered from the petitioner under threat of arrest, since was handed over by the Collector to the respondent No. 5, was to be deposited by it with a nationalized bank in some interest bearing account. Sri D.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 5 states that the said amount received from the Collector, as directed by this Court, has been kept in interest bearing account in a nationalized bank. However, he needs time to seek instructions to inform the Court with respect to the Bank where the deposit has been made and also interest, which has accrued. Sri D.P. Singh may file an affidavit indicating the details of deposit, which is made by the respondent No. 5 under the order dated 30th October, 2013. List on 22nd July, 2014 peremptorily.” 12. Today, when the matter was taken up, though in compliance of the order, learned counsel for the respondent produced before us the original Term Deposit receipt of Punjab National Bank, which goes to show that a sum of Rs. 1,59,28,000/- was deposited for a period of one year at the rate of 9% interest. Learned counsel for the respondent contends before use that even if the recovery is illegal and without jurisdiction, but since the petitioner is in arrears of lease rent and the amount has been recovered, hence, they are entitled to retain and appropriate the same. 13. We are not impressed with the submission. The issue whether any lease rent is due and the quantum thereof, is a question of fact requiring evidence for adjudication. It is nether the scope of the writ petition nor it can be appropriately and effectively undertaken in writ proceedings. It is always open to respondent No. 5 to invoke the common law remedy, which may be available to him under law for realization of its dues. The involvement of the office of the Collector for realizing the outstanding arrears of rent by coercive method, is not permissible in law and is unsustainable. 14. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The involvement of the office of the Collector for realizing the outstanding arrears of rent by coercive method, is not permissible in law and is unsustainable. 14. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The recovery certificate dated 23.9.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by District Magistrate directing Tahsildar to recover the amount from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, are hereby quashed. Since the recovery, being illegal, has been quashed, respondent No. 5 cannot be permitted to retain the amount, which was handed over to him after being recovered illegally from the petitioner by coercive method, under threat of arrest by the Collector and the same is liable to be refunded. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,75,20,800/- was issued in favour of Tahsildar and out of the said amount after deducting 10% recovery charges, only a sum of Rs. 1,59,28,000/- was passed on by the Collector to respondent No. 5. The petitioner is entitled for refund of not only the entire amount of Rs. 1,75,20,000/- paid by him, but also the interest, which may have accrued on the said amount in Fixed Term Deposit with the bank. 16. In the circumstances, respondent No. 5 is directed to discontinue/encash the F.D.R. amounting to Rs. 1,59,28,000/- deposited with the Punjab National Bank alongwith interest, which may have accrued on account of the said deposit and forward the same to the Collector within 10 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Collector, Ghaziabad, on receipt of the said amount from respondent No. 5, shall refund the same alongwith 10% recovery charges, which was deduced by him out of the amount paid by the petitioner, within a further period of one week from the date of receipt of the amount from the respondent No. 5.