CHIRANJI LAL Vs. THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Board, Allahabad, auctioned tahbazari rights, i.e., to collect 'khonchi' in Rithaia Bazar, village Kotwa, district Allahabad. The Appellant Ghiranji Lal was the highest bidder. Accordingly, the contract was given to him for a sum of Rs. 4,350/ - for one year beginning from 1st October, 1952. Under the contract the Appellant was entitled to realise the tahbazari dues from the various shopkeepers in the bazar. He was to pay the contracted sum of Rs. 4,350/ - to the District Board. The Appellant, however, paid Rs. 2,150/ -. He refused to pay the balance on the ground that for several reasons he had not been assisted by the District Board in the task of collecting the tahbazari dues. The District Board took proceedings to recover the balance of Rs. 2,200/ - as arrears of land revenue. The Tahsildar issued a notice Under Sec. 280 of the UP ZA Act to the Appellant requiring him to pay Rs. 2,200/ - and intimating that in default it would be realised as arrears of land revenue. The Appellant challenged this notice by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that the amount due was in respect of land which vested in the District Board and as such Sec. 225 of the ZA Act was dearly applicable and the proceedings were valid.

(2.) Under the contract the Appellant was required to pay a fixed sum irrespective of what amount of tahbazari he may himself be able to collect. It is clear that the contracted amount of Rs. 4,350/ - was not the tahbazari to which the District Board may have been entitled. Tahbazari was payable by the shopkeepers of the bazar for using the land. The tahbazari might be equated with rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of property. But since those dues were not being realised by the District Board, it cannot be said that the present proceedings were for recovery of arrears of rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of property. The present proceedings were for recovery of an agreed amount payable by the Appellant to the District Board under a contract. The contract had no nexus with any particular property vesting in the District Board. The contract was in respect of a right to collect tahbazari from the users of the property. The amount which the Appellant was liable to pay to the Distt. Bjard could not in law be equated with rent, sayar or other dues due in respect of a particular property.

(3.) Sec. 225 authorises recovery of arrears of rent, sayar or other dues in respect of property vesting in a local authority as arrears of land revenue. This provision was clearly inapplicable to the recovery of the balance of the contracted sum from the Appellant.