High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Umesh Chandra v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Revenue & Others - WRIT - C No. 61424 of 2005  RD-AH 3018 (16 September 2005)
Court No. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61424 of 2005
Umesh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others.
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
HON'BLE RK RASTOGI, J
1. The petitioner had taken loan from respondent No.3 . According to the petitioner he has paid part of the loan but could not pay the entire loan. The respondents have issued recovery notice against him for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. Hence the present writ petition.
2. We have heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Sinha, counsel for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. According to the petitioner he could not pay the loan due to the circumstances beyond his control. In view of this, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with following directions.
The petitioner may deposit the entire arrears in three instalments. In calculating the arrears the amount (if any) already paid will be adjusted.
The first instalment may be deposited by the end of December 2005 and the subsequent instalments may be deposited after the interval of every three months. These deposits may be made before respondent No. 3. In case instalments are deposited before respondent No. 3 then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioner.
During this period, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioner defaults in depositing the instalments within the above-stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again.
The petitioner may file application for the accounts along with duly stamped self-addressed envelope. In case any such application is filed, the same will be given to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 after deposit of first instalment.
This order will not affect any auction already held. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under UPZA & LR Act and Rules, 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law.
It is clarified that this order will not be operative in case the petitioner has filed any other earlier writ petition against the recovery.
4. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.