Dismissed

Bal Krishna Bhatiya v. State of U P and 9 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020WRIC/9028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a recovery certificate and demand notice issued by Greater NOIDA regarding alleged forged premium challans. The Court held that liabilities incurred before the transfer memorandum date remain with the original allottee and the petition was dismissed for being devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing the recovery certificate and demand notice was dismissed.

Bal Krishna Bhatiya Vs State of U P and 9 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9028 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Bal Krishna Bhatiya Respondent :- State Of U P And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhola Nath Yadav,Ajai Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhya,Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,Bhanu Bhus

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Greater NOIDA and Sri Chandrabhan Gupta, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 & 8.

¶7

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the recovery certificate dated 31.01.2019 issued by the Deputy General Manager, Udyog Greater NOIDA and impugned demand notice dated 10.02.2019 and the recovery proceeding initiated pursuant thereto. Further prayer is to issue a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive measure and not to arrest the petitioner.

¶8

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner though was an allottee of the plot-in-question, but he had transferred the said plot by executing an agreement to sell dated 01.09.2011 in favour of respondent no.7 and later executed a sale-deed in her name the year 2014 after seeking permission from the Greater NOIDA.

¶9

The transfer memorandum dated 24.02.2019 has been placed before the Court to substantiate the said submission and to assert that after transfer of the plot-in-question in favour of respondent no.7, with the consent/permission of the Greater NOIDA, the liability towards premium, if any, cannot be saddled upon the petitioner.

¶10

These contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been rebutted by the counsel for the Greater NOIDA with the assertions in paragraph nos. '11', '12', '13' & '14' of the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that on a one time settlement arrived with the Greater NOIDA, the petitioner herein had submitted six challans between 06.09.2011 and 12.10.2011. All those six challans were found forged on the verification done by the respondent no.3 from the respective banks.

¶11

A first information report dated 19.08.2018 had, therefore, been lodged against the petitioner, respondent no.7 and respondent no.8, which has been registered as Case Crime No.0815 in P.S.Surajpur, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶12

The contention of Sri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Authority is that the recovery being made vide recovery certificate dated 31.01.2019 pertains to the deposits made in the year 2011 by submitting forged challans. The deposits made prior to the transfer memorandum signed by the Greater NOIDA on 24.02.2014 cannot be avoided by the petitioner.

¶13

The assertions in paragraph nos. '11', '12', '13' & '14'of the counter affidavit have been replied in paragraph nos. '11' to '14' of the rejoinder affidavit. It is sought to be submitted by the petitioner therein that a general power of attorney dated 01.09.2011 was executed by the petitioner in favour of Vasudev Taneja i.e. respondent no.8 and the forgery, if any, made by the said person cannot be made basis to initiate recovery against the petitioner. In any case no deposits have been made by the petitioner at the relevant point of time.

¶14

All these submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the contentions made in the writ petition do not find any substance, inasmuch as, the transfer memorandum, transferring the plot-in-question in favour of respondent no.7 has been executed on 24.02.2014. The consent given by the Greater NOIDA for transfer of land in favour of respondent no.7 cannot be taken as a tool to deny liability of the petitioner to pay premium prior to the said date. The agreement to sell executed on 01.09.2011 without transfer of possession of the plot-inquestion and consent of the Authority is of no consequence.

¶15

Even otherwise, the categorical case of respondent- the Greater NOIDA is that six challans were submitted in the name of the petitioner herein and they all were found forged after the verification done from the respective banks.

¶16

For the above, no infirmity could be found in the demand raised by the Greater NOIDA. No interference as such can be made in the recovery issued against the petitioner.

¶17

The writ petition is, thus, found devoid of merits and hence, dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 P Kesari

Bal Krishna Bhatiya v. State of U P and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bal Krishna Bhatiya v. State of U P and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siddharth Kasana Vs Smt. Monika Singh

Gaurav Tyagi Vs Smt. Parul Tyagi

Jang Bahadur Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Prabal Pratap Singh and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and 23 Others

Panna Vs Additional Chief Executive Officer and 6 Others