Disposed¶14

Maharajdeen and Another v. Collector Sitapur and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2026WRIC/1321/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Recovery citation quashed; Tehsildar Biswan Sitapur; kisan credit card; one time settlement (OTS) lapsed on default; fresh OTS application within one week; bank to decide within three weeks; Bank of Baroda; Rs.7,44,000/- recovery; Article 226 Constitution of India; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Subhash Vidyarthi, J.; WRIT-C No. 1321 of 2026; February 12, 2026; UP revenue recovery; Collector Sitapur.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of: petitioners to give a fresh one time settlement application to the opposite party no.3-Bank within one week; bank to consider and decide it within three weeks thereafter; further recovery to abide by the outcome of the one time settlement; the undated recovery citation issued by the opposite party no.2 quashed. ¶14

Maharajdeen and Another vs Collector Sitapur and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the undated recovery citation issued by the opposite party no.2/Tehsildar, Biswan, Sitapur for recovery of Rs.7,44,000/- from the petitioners is valid. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

Further recovery of the amount was made subject to the outcome of the one time settlement, and the undated recovery citation issued by the opposite party no.2 was quashed.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners were directed to give an application to the opposite party no.3-Bank for entering into a one time settlement within a period of one week.

¶14

Key takeaways

The bank was directed to consider and decide the fresh one time settlement application within a period of three weeks thereafter.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Subhash Vidyarthi, J. — WRIT - C No. 1321 of 2026, decided February 12, 2026. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged an undated recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar, Biswan, Sitapur (opposite party no.2) for recovery of Rs.7,44,000/- pursuant to a kisan credit card facility from Bank of Baroda (opposite party no.3). The petitioners had entered a one time settlement dated 31.07.2025 settling the loan at Rs.3,25,000/-, paid Rs.50,000/-, with Rs.2,75,000/- payable by 06.08.2025, but defaulted again owing to illness of petitioner no.1; the bank stated the settlement had lapsed but a fresh proposal would be considered sympathetically. Held: petition disposed of — petitioners to move a fresh one time settlement application within one week, the bank to consider and decide it within three weeks thereafter; further recovery to abide by the outcome of the settlement; the undated recovery citation quashed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1321 of 2026

¶3

Maharajdeen And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s) Versus Collector Sitapur And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Narayan Yadav, Kavita Yadav, Sangeeta Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Srivastava

¶5

Court No. - 17

¶6

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Satya Narayan Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradip Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-Bank of Baroda and perused the records.

¶8

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an undated recovery citation issued by the opposite party no.2/Tehsildar, Biswan, Sitapur for recovery of Rs.7,44,000/- from the petitioners.

¶9

The petitioners had taken kisan credit card facility from the opposite party no.3-Bank. The petitioner states that after a default having been committed by him in repayment of the loan the one time settlement scheme was entered into with the bank on 31.07.2025 for settling the amount of loan of Rs.3,25,000/-. The petitioner had already paid Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,75,000/- was agreed to be paid by 06.08.2025. The petitioners claim that due to illness of petitioner no.1 a default was again committed in repayment of loan amount.

¶10

The learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has stated that as after entering into a one time settlement the petitioner

¶11

WRIC No. 1321 of 2026

¶12

¶13

committed a default in paying the settled money, the settlement has lapsed. However, in case the petitioner gives a fresh proposal for entering into a one time settlement the bank will consider the same sympathetically.

¶14

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off by issuing a direction that the petitioners shall give an application to the opposite party no.3-Bank for entering into a one time settlement within a period of one week from today and the bank shall consider and decide the same within a period of three weeks thereafter. The further recovery of the amount shall be abide by the outcome of one time settlement, this is for the undated recovery citation issued by the opposite party no.2 is hereby quashed.

¶15

February 12, 2026

¶16

Ram.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Maharajdeen and Another v. Collector Sitapur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharajdeen and Another v. Collector Sitapur and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M Baba Prem Das Junior High Schoool Thru.Manager,Harish Chandra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

Brisha Bhan Tiwari vs Civil Judge Sadar (Junior Division) Dist. Faizabad and 4 Others

Radha Krishna Katiyar vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru. Head of the Branch, Lucknow

Lokesh Singh Patel vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Lko. and 12 Others