Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20488 of 2018 Petitioner :- Vinod Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 4.
The entitlement to recover dues at the instance of the petitioner in terms of the agreement became subject matter of Writ C No.24415 of 2002 that was dismissed on 18.05.2016 by the following judgment :
“1. Heard Sri H.P. Dubey, Advocate holding brief of Sri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and perused the record.
2. Admittedly in contract, there was condition mentioned in para 11 that any loss occurred on fault of petitioners, the amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Pursuant thereto, impugned recovery is being made from petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue and has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohammad Umar vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Moradabad and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2643 wherein it is evident that in the agreement, there was no clause authorising authorities to recover amount as arrears of land revenue and in absence of such a condition, Court said that if there is no contractual or statutory provision to recover amount as arrears of land revenue, authorities cannot be permitted to recover amount as arrears of land revenue.
4. However, in the present case, there is an agreement, which contains a clause authorising authorities to recover amount as arrears of land revenue and this agreement has been accepted by petitioners with open eye, therefore they have to carry out the same. Since there is clear stipulation permitting authorities to recover amount as arrears of land revenue, we do not find that aforesaid decision would lend any credence to petitioner in support of his argument and thus, it cannot be said that recovery of amount in question as arrears of land revenue is without jurisdiction.
5. No other point has been argued.
6. Writ petition has got no merit. It is accordingly, dismissed.”
Against the same, a Special Leave to Appeal No.15729 of 2016 was filed before the Apex Court that was dismissed on 18.07.2016 by the following order :
“Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order so passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, pending applications filed in the matter are also disposed of.”
It is therefore evident that the issue of recovery practically stands foreclosed on the legal issues advanced and a mere change in law would not absolve the petitioner inasmuch as the previous decisions are binding inter parties.
Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that the liability of the petitioner is only to the extent of 25%. We are not inclined to investigate this fact inasmuch the legal issue raised can not be now considered by us in view of what has been stated above but so far as the question of extent of liability is concerned, the petitioner can move a representation before the respondent no.3 who may consider the same and inform the petitioner accordingly.
The writ petition is consigned to records with the said observations.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 R./