HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.261 of 2005 (M/S) Shri Shubhan Ahmad S/o Nazir Ahmad R/o 21 Naya Nagar Gandhi Road Dehradun … Petitioner Vs Additional District Magistrate (Fin.) Dehradun & others … Respondents Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lalit Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3. A contract was awarded to the petitioner for transportation and sale of milk and milk products of respondent no.3 for the period 01.04.1992 to 30.03.1993. An agreement to this effect was executed between the parties. Clause 41 of the agreement indicated that in case of a dispute, the matter would be referred for adjudication under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The contract came to an end after the expiry of the period of one year. In the year 2004, a recovery certificate dated 08.12.2004 was issued for the recovery of Rs.1,09,312/- as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The petitioner, upon receipt of the said certificate, filed its objection before the Addl. District Magistrate (Finance) and submitted that the amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and, in any case, the dispute has to be referred to under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. Inspite of raising objections, the respondent insisted that the petitioner should deposit the amount and this insistence allowed the petitioner to file the present writ petition. -2- Respondent no.3 has filed a counter affidavit indicating that under the agreement, the petitioner was required to return the milk cans and that the petitioner had not deposited the collected amount of sale of milk products. In this regard, notices dated 22.08.1992, 18.03.1993, 20.09.1993, 02.08.1994, 25.02.1999 and 06.02.2000 were issued demanding the payment of the balance amount from the petitioner. It is alleged that inspite of these notices, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the notices and nor paid the amount and, consequently, the recovery certificate was issued. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that in view of clause 41 of the agreement, the dispute between the parties in terms of the contract was required to be adjudicated under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. The fact that any amount had to be recovered from the petitioner is disputed by the petitioner and, consequently, an adjudication is required to be made. Until and unless, an adjudication is made, no amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue as is clear from the reading of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. Even otherwise, the court finds that there is no provision under the agreement that the amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In the absence of any specific provision under the contract, the amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. In Mohd. Umar Vs. Nagar Palika, Khatima & others 1998 Allahabad Law Journal 1387, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that money due under a contract cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, unless any statutory provision makes it recoverable as arrears of land revenue or there is an agreement between the parties to the -3- contract for recovery of the amount due under the agreement as arrears of land revenue. In the present case, the agreement entered into between the parties is silent on this aspect. Further, the court has already observed that Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 is not applicable. In the light of the aforesaid, the recovery citation issued by the respondent is patently illegal and against the eyes of law. The impugned order is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 14.12.2011 LSR