Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 41 (UTT)

Saeed v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-02-01

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. DHYANI, J. 1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the impugned recovery citation dated 13.10.2015, issued by respondent no. 2. 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that, firstly, Section 47 of the Waqf Act, 1995, has not been complied with, which says that the accounts of auqaf submitted to the Board under Section 46 shall be audited and examined in the manner as has been prescribed under Section 47. Secondly, it is also submitted that Section 48 provides that the Board shall examine the Auditor’s report, and may call for explanation of any person in regard to any matter mentioned therein, and shall pass such orders as it thinks fit including orders for the recovery of the amount certified by the auditor under sub-section (2) of section 47. 3. Section 49 of the Waqf Act, 1995, is important in the context of present case, which reads as under:- “49. Sums certified to be due recoverable as arrears of land revenue:– (1) Every sum certified to be due from any person by an auditor in his report under section 47 unless such certificate is modified or cancelled by an order of the Board or of the Tribunal made under section 48 and every sum due on a modified certificate shall be paid by such person within sixty days after the service of a demand for the same issued by the Board. (2) If such payment is not made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the sum payable may, on a certificate issued by the Board after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, be recovered in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.” 4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the amount claimed by the respondent cannot be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. 5. The writ petition, in the aforesaid circumstances, succeeds. As a consequence thereof, impugned recovery citation dated 13.10.2015, issued against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 6. This will, however, not preclude the respondent no. 3 or any appropriate authority to issue recovery citation against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of being heard. 7. 5. The writ petition, in the aforesaid circumstances, succeeds. As a consequence thereof, impugned recovery citation dated 13.10.2015, issued against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. 6. This will, however, not preclude the respondent no. 3 or any appropriate authority to issue recovery citation against the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of being heard. 7. Both the applications (IA No. 609 of 2016 as well as CLMA No. 735 of 2016) also stand disposed of.