Dismissed

Raghuvir Singh v. Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur

Uttarakhand HC9 Nov 2021WPMS/791/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the recovery of a loan as arrears of land revenue. It held that the loan was a state-sponsored scheme and thus correctly recoverable under the UP Public Moneys Recovery of Dues Act, distinguishing it from a commercial bank case.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition seeking quashing of recovery citation and direction not to recover the loan amount under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act is dismissed.

Raghuvir Singh Vs Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur — Property and Title | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 791 of 2010

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Raghuvir Singh (Deceased) & Others. …….Petitioners (By Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar & others. …..Respondents

¶11

(By Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 & Ms. Anju Mehta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no. 2)

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This writ petition was filed in the year 2010

¶14

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶15

“I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the recovery citation dated 29.04.2010 issued by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner for the recovery of the loan amount for Rs. 5,16,206/=+other (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition)

¶16

II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1, not to recover the amount of loan of Rs. 5,16,206/=+ other from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act of 1972.

¶17

III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. , Uttaranchal Bahu Udeshiya vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Ltd. Udham Singh Nagar to accept the loan amount in easy instalments.”

¶18

¶19

The facts, which are not in dispute, are that Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, Udham Singh Nagar is a Corporation owned and controlled by Uttarakhand Government. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste, who took a loan of ` 4,11,000/- from aforesaid Corporation for purchasing a Tata-Sumo Car for running it as Taxi.

¶20

Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, a recovery certificate was issued by the Corporation for recovery of outstanding dues, amounting to ` 5,16,206/-+other charges. Feeling aggrieved by the recovery citation dated 24.09.2010 issued by Tehsildar, Jaspur (Udham Singh Nagar), petitioner filed this writ petition. Now legal representatives of the petitioner have been substituted in terms of order dated 01.10.2021.

¶21

Contention in the writ petition was that the loan taken from respondent no. 2 is a commercial loan for purchasing a car, therefore, it cannot be recovered under provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and, only a loan advanced under State Sponsored Scheme, can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶22

Since no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the lending agency (respondent no. 2), despite several opportunities, therefore, this Court vide order dated 22.10.2021 directed District Manager, Uttaranchal Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, Udham Singh Nagar to appear

¶23

¶24

in person before this Court, with entire record, on the next date.

¶25

In sequel to the said order, Mr. Aman Anirudha, District Social Welfare Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, who is having additional charge of the post of District Manager, Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, appeared in Court today. He produced the loan agreement executed between petitioner and respondent no. 2 on 17.04.2003, which is taken on record.

¶26

Perusal of the loan agreement reveals that in clause 18, there is a stipulation that in case of any default in repayment of loan, the outstanding amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue through District Magistrate and the borrower would be liable to pay 10% of the outstanding amount, as recovery charges.

¶27

Mr. Aman Anirudha, District Social Welfare Officer/Incharge District Manager, Uttarakhand Bahuuddeshiya Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam Limited, Udham Singh Nagar has apprised the Court that 85% of the amount disbursed as loan to the petitioner was sourced from National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development Corporation at interest rate of 7% per annum and the remaining amount of loan was provided by the Uttarakhand Government at interest rate of 4% per annum. He further informed that due to default committed by petitioner in repayment of loan, State Government has repaid the amount due to National Scheduled Castes Finance & Development

¶28

¶29

Corporation with interest, as State Government stood as guarantor in respect of the said amount. He further submitted that loan was sanctioned to petitioner under a State Sponsored Scheme meant for persons belonging to weaker sections of society, on a subsidized rate of interest for providing selfemployment and there was a stipulation in the loan agreement that outstanding amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue through Collector, therefore, according to him, respondent no. 2 was well within its right to issue recovery certificate for recovery of the loan amount.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered in the case of Iqbal Naseer Usmani v. Central Bank of India and others, reported in AIR (2006) S.C. 893. In that case, the commercial bank, which had advanced loan, had filed a Money Recovery Suit and obtained decree against the borrower, but, instead of getting the decree executed, the lender bank approached the Tehsildar for issuing a certificate of recovery under Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. In this background, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since there is no evidence to suggest that the loan was disbursed under a State Sponsored Scheme, therefore, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, cannot be invoked. The said judgment is distinguishable on facts, as the loan was given by a commercial Bank in the course of routine banking business and not under a State Sponsored Scheme.

¶31

¶32

A perusal of the loan agreement executed between petitioner and respondent no. 2 leaves no scope for doubt that petitioner was granted loan under a State Sponsored Scheme at subsidized rate of interest. Respondent no. 2 is a Government Company, which gives loan only to weaker sections of society under various schemes of the Government. As per loan agreement, the loan sanctioned to petitioner on 17.04.2003 was divided into two parts, namely, (a) margin money of 42,000/- at the interest rate of 4% per annum; and (b) term loan of 3,69,000/- at the interest rate of 7% per annum. Clause 18 of the loan agreement clearly stipulated that in case of any default in repayment of the loan, the outstanding amount shall be recoverable through Collector, as arrears of land revenue.

¶33

In such view of the matter, recovery of the outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no scope for interference with the mode of recovery adopted by respondent no. 2.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶35

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶36

Navin

Raghuvir Singh v. Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuvir Singh v. Tehsildar, Jaspur, Tehsil Jaspur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Chandra Sharma Vs R. K. Kunwar

Dharma Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Revenue

Manage Ram Vs Mr. Deepak Rawat

Virendra Kumar Sharma Vs District Magistrate Nainital

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Chanchal Singh Vs District Magistrate Collector Bageshwar