Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 594 (UTT)

Micky Palta v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-12-17

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Petitioners took a term (commercial) loan from the Panjab National Bank for establishing and running brick-kiln in the month of October, 2010. When petitioners could not pay the outstanding amount of the loan, recovery certificate was issued by the bank to the Collector, Haridwar to recover the outstanding amount along with interest as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, whereupon a citation was issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee to effect the recovery against the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners approached this Court by way of present writ petition. 2. The sole question involved in the present case is to whether amount of term (commercial) loan can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972? 3. Sub Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act, 1972 reads as under: “3. Recovery of certain dues as arrears of land revenue-(1) Where any person is party:- (a) To any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire-purchase of goods, sold to him by the State Government or the Corporation, by way of financial assistance. (b) To any agreement relating to a loan, advance or grant given to him or relating to credit in respect of, or relating to hire-purchase of goods sold to him, by a banking company or a Government Company, as the case may be, under a State sponsored scheme. (c) To any agreement relating to a guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of a loan raised by an industrial concern. (d) To any agreement providing that any money payable there under to the State Government [or the Corporation] shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue; and such person:- (i) Makes any default in repayment of the loan or advance or any instalment thereof. (ii) Having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof. (iii) Otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. (ii) Having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof. (iii) Otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement. Then, in the case of the State Government, such officer as may be authorized in that behalf by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and in the case of the Corporation or a Government company the Managing Director [or where there is no Managing Director then the Chairman of the Corporation, by whatever name called][or such officer of the Corporation or Government Company as may be authorized in that behalf by the Managing Director or the Chairman] thereof, and in the case of a banking company, the local agent, thereof, by whatever name called, may send a certificate to the Collector, mentioning the sum due from such person and requesting that such sum together with costs of the proceedings be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue.” 4. Having perused Section 3 of the Act carefully, I have no hesitation to hold that Recovery of dues can be made as arrears of land revenue, if debtor is a party to an agreement relating to a loan, credit in respect of hire- purchase of goods sold to him by the State Government or the Corporation, by way of financial assistance; or if amount is due relating to hire-purchase of goods sold to him, by a banking company or a State company under a State sponsored scheme; or such debtor is a party to an agreement relating to guarantee given by the State Government or the Corporation in respect of loan raised by any industrial concern; or loan agreement provides that loan shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. 5. Undisputedly, none of the conditions of Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 is present in the present case in view of the fact that a term (commercial) loan was granted in favour of the petitioner to establish and run the brick-kiln and that loan was not extended under any State sponsored scheme. 6. 5. Undisputedly, none of the conditions of Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 3 is present in the present case in view of the fact that a term (commercial) loan was granted in favour of the petitioner to establish and run the brick-kiln and that loan was not extended under any State sponsored scheme. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Naseer Usmani vs. Central Bank of India and Others, (2006) 2 SCC 241 has also held that if case does not fall within the parameters of Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, provisions of 1972 cannot pressed in service for the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue. 7. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Citation letter dated 10.07.2012 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. However, it is clarified that bank shall be at liberty to recover the outstanding amount from the petitioner in accordance with law.