Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1541 (ALL)

Krishna Bahadur Singh v. Collector Bahraich

2017-06-16

VIVEK CHAUDHARY

body2017
JUDGMENT Vivek Chaudhary, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The facts of the present case are that petitioners took two agricultural loans from respondent Bank. Petitioners could not regularly deposit instalments and defaulted the same. In the said circumstances, Bank initiated process to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue. Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahsi, district Bahraich, therefore, at the instance of Bank, issued two recovery certificates to both the petitioners of “Rs. 12,85,701/- + others” on 05.05.2017. Admittedly, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,85,701/- is the total loan amount due. For the payment of said liability without any further steps being taken, at the instance of revenue authorities, petitioners deposited with the Tehsildar an amount of Rs. 99,990/-. Tehsildar issued receipt of the said deposit in the breakup of Rs. 49,000/- for the Bank and further Rs. 4,900/- as 10% recovery charges for the same and an amount of Rs. 41,900/- for the Bank and Rs. 4,190/- as 10% revenue charges for the same. Thus out of Rs. 99,990/-10% was deducted and kept by Tehsildar as collection charges and the remaining amount was sent to the Bank. 3. Large number of recovery certificates are coming to this Court where Tehsildars across the State are, after referring to the amount due add further vague demand by word ‘Anya’ etc., i.e. other charges, in the recovery citations and in the garb of said words are arbitrarily charging as recovery charges undue amounts from marginal farmers and poor persons, most of whom are illiterate and have no knowledge of law. 4. As in the present case and in all such cases, recovery proceedings are held under the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 and U.P. Revenue Code Rules 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Code of 2006 and Rules of 2016’). Relevant Section of the Code of 2006 for the present purpose is Section 180 and the relevant rules are Rule 178 and 179 of Rules of 2016. For convenience both Section 180 of Code of 2006 and Rule 178 & 179 of Rules of 2016 are being quoted below: “Section 180. Recovery of costs and collection charges.-- (1) The costs of any of the processes mentioned in sections 170 to 178 including costs of arrest and detention shall be such as may be prescribed. For convenience both Section 180 of Code of 2006 and Rule 178 & 179 of Rules of 2016 are being quoted below: “Section 180. Recovery of costs and collection charges.-- (1) The costs of any of the processes mentioned in sections 170 to 178 including costs of arrest and detention shall be such as may be prescribed. (2) The State Government may impose collection charges at a rate, not exceeding ten per cent of the amount due, as may be prescribed: Provided that no collection charges shall be payable if the amount due is paid before arrest of the defaulter or before sale of the attached property, as the case may be. (3) Such costs and collection charges may be added to and be recoverable in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.” “Rule 178. Cost of various process (Section 180).-- The costs of various processes mentioned in Sections 170 to 178 shall be as follows, and shall be recoverable along with arrears of land revenue: (a) writ of demand Rs. 5/- (b) Warrant of Arrest Rs. 10/-” Rule 179. Collection charges (Section 180).--Where any sum recoverable as arrear of land revenue is sought to be realised under or in accordance with the provisions of this Code, the State Government shall subject to the provisions of Section 180, be entitled to collection charges at the rate of five per cent on the amount of each arrears, in addition to the cost of processes referred to in Rule 178.” 5. A bare perusal of Section 180 establishes that no collection charges are payable if the amount due is paid before arrest of the defaulter or before sale of the attached property, as the case may be. Thus, till either event as mentioned in proviso to Section 180(2) takes place, revenue authorities cannot levy any collection charges. Only amount which they can in such circumstances charge is cost of various process as provided under Rule 178 of Rules of 2016 which is Rs. 5/- for writ of demand and Rs. 10/- for warrant of arrest. Admittedly, in the present case only a writ of demand has been issued. Thus the only amount that Tehsildar could have demanded was Rs. 5/- and there is no provision under which 10% of the amount paid by the petitioners could have been with-held by the Tehsildar as recovery charges. 6. 10/- for warrant of arrest. Admittedly, in the present case only a writ of demand has been issued. Thus the only amount that Tehsildar could have demanded was Rs. 5/- and there is no provision under which 10% of the amount paid by the petitioners could have been with-held by the Tehsildar as recovery charges. 6. In view of these facts Collector, Bahraich is directed to setup an inquiry in the matter as to how such huge amount has been taken away by Tehsildar without there being any provision in law to recover 10% recovery charges. The Collector shall ensure that the entire 10% amount so deducted by Tehsildar is deposited in the Bank on behalf of the petitioners within a period of 15 days from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 7. Counsel for respondent Bank states that the amount due by petitioners as on date is Rs. 11,71,883/-. Petitioners will pay an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs within a period of two months from today and remaining amount shall be paid in four quarterly equal instalments within a period of one year from the date of deposit of first instalment. 8. In case of violation of aforesaid conditions, the respondents are free to recover the amount from the petitioners in accordance with low. 9. Since large number of similar matters are coming every day before this Court, in which in every recovery citation issued by any and every Tehsildar of the State after mentioning the recoverable amount, “other charges” are mentioned without giving any explanation and details of the same. In garb of such arbitrary words used, without even specifying the amount, arbitrarily huge amounts are being extracted from poor farmers and other marginal persons. Such vague and arbitrary words cannot be used either by Tehsildar or by any other revenue authorities. It is incumbent upon them to specifically state the amount which they demand as provided under the aforesaid Sections and Rules. 10. In the above circumstances, since such matters were repeatedly coming before this Court, in connected Writ Petition No. 13521 (M/S) of 2017- Parsa Singh v. State of U.P. & Others, the learned Standing Counsel was asked to seek instructions. Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed before this Court an order dated 15.06.2017 issued by Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. The said order is taken on record. Today, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed before this Court an order dated 15.06.2017 issued by Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. The said order is taken on record. By the said order, the Commissioner/Secretary has again issued directions, quoting Section 180 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and directed the authorities to strictly comply with the law. This Court is unable to understand as to how by mere saying that revenue authorities may strictly comply with law, aforesaid mischief being committed across the State by Tahsildars and lower level revenue authorities would be stopped. 11. In view of the above, it is incumbent upon this Court to direct the Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue Board, to issue specific directions to all the revenue authorities as follows: “(I) direct the revenue authorities not to use vague words like, ‘ANYA’/recovery charges/recovery expenses or any other similar words in the recovery certificates; (II) to strictly specify in the Recovery Certificate/Writ of demand the exact amount decided to be charged under Rule 178 or 179; (III) to specify the Officer authority which would take a decision and pass order regarding specific amount to be charged as collection charges under Rule 179 of Rules of 2016 read with Section 180 of Revenue Code of 2006; (iv) to serve upon the person concerned order passed specifying the demand of collection charges under Rule 179 of Rules of 2016.” 12. The exercise of powers under Rule 179 read with Section 180 being discriminatory can be exercised only by a responsible officer and it cannot be left to the lower level revenue personnel, like Amins and Tehsildars. 13. Mr. Satyanshu Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order within one week to the Commissioner/Secretary of Board of Revenue, who shall issue appropriate directions within a period of two weeks thereafter. 14. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition is disposed of.