Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 .
The impugned recovery is sought to be made from the petitioner through a citation dated 24.11.2015 issued by the Tehsildar, , in Form No. 69 under Rule 236 read with Section 282 of the U.P. Z.A & L.R. Act 1950 and the rules frame thereunder.
Apart from the liability being denied by the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle, the petitioner contends that the recovery which is sought to be made from him is not in accordance with law and even otherwise it cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue through a process under which the impugned citation has been issued.
We had earlier called upon the learned counsel for the Corporation to produce the copy of the agreement under which the said recovery is being attempted by the Corporation. Sri Chandra Shekhar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents has produced a copy of agreement and Clause 10 thereof as reads as follows-:
"Pkkyd dh fdlh =qfV] vlko/kkuh nq?kZVuk ;k vU; voS/k dk;ksZa dk iw.kZ nkf;Ro f}rh; i{k dk gksxk rFkk bl lEca/k esa fdlh Hkh izfrdj ;k vU; ns; /kujkf'k ds Hkqxrku dk nkf;Ro cl Lokeh ;k vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr chek dEiuh dk gksxkA fdlh Hkh voLFkk es pkyd dh =qfV vlko/kkuh nq?kZVuk ;k voS/k dk;Z dk nkf;Ro izFke i{k dk ugha gksxkA ;fn fdlh U;k;ky; vkfn ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa izFke i{k }kjk dksbZ Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gks rks f}rh; i{k ds ns;dksa ls ;k vU; fof/k;ksa ls izFke i{k O;olkf;d nj ij C;kt olwyh djus ds fy, vf/kd`r gksxkA "
Admittedly, the vehicle of the petitioner under the aforesaid agreement with the UPSRTC was plying when an accident occurred and as a result of the Motor Accident Claim, arising therefrom, the liability was fixed which is now sought to be recovered from the owner, keeping in view Clause 10 of the aforesaid agreement.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs U.P.S.R.T.C, Sapru Marg, Lucknow in F.A.F.O 199 of 2001 and other connected appeals decided on 18.09.2009, to urge that such liability cannot be fixed on the petitioner nor recovered from him and it has to be borne by the Corporation itself.
It is also urged that the said judgment had been taken up in Appeal before the Apex Court and the SLP has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has relied on the judgment in the Case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Kulsum and Ors, 2011 Volume 8 SCC pg.42 to contend otherwise.
We are not entering into the merits of the claim and the counter claim relating to the extent of liability which is now sought to be recovered from the petitioner but the mode of recovery in our opinion does not conform to Clause-10 of the aforesaid agreement. The recovery from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue on a recovery certificate issued by the UPSRTC without there-being any provision under the agreement was, therefore, not enforceable through the Collector by the Tehsildar and as such this mode of recovery cannot be approved of.
Consequently, we quash the citation dated 24.11.2015 as well as the recovery proceedings which have been initiated as arrears of Land Revenue under the U.P.Z.A & L.R.Act, 1950.
It shall be, however, open to the Corporation to take recourse to such other legal remedy which may be available to it under the agreement for the said purpose.
With these observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 20.1.2016 Shahnaz