Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Mukesh & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 62322 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3444 (23 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62322 of 2005

Mukesh Bhardwaj  and others  Vs.   State of U.P and others.



1. The petitioners had taken loan from respondent No.7.  According to the petitioners they have paid part of the loan but could not pay the entire loan. The respondents have issued recovery notice against them for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. Hence the present writ petition.

2. We  have heard Counsel for the petitioners and  the Sri N.Misra, counsel for the respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners  they could not pay the loan  due to the circumstances beyond their  control. In view of this, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with following directions.

The petitioners  may deposit the entire arrears in twenty four 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. 7.  In case instalments are deposited before respondent No. 7  then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioners.

During this period, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioners  default in depositing the instalments within the above-stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again.

The petitioners  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 petitioners  by respondent No. 7   after deposit of first instalment.

This order will not affect any auction already held.  In that event the petitioners  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 petitioners had filed any other earlier writ petition against the recovery.

4. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 23.9.05



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.