MANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The bunch of petitions challenge the recovery certificates sent by the Executive Officer of Nagar Palika Parishad, Baheri, District Bareilly to the Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Bareilly to recover the arrears of rent, allegedly due on the petitioners. In Writ-C Nos. 48816 of 2012, 51960 of 2011, 913 of 2012, 42531 of 2011, 42669 of 2011 and 44245 of 2011 consequential recovery citations have also been issued by the Collector u/s 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1916").

(2.) It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the arrears of rent, allegedly due on any shopkeeper in possession of a shop allotted to him by the Municipality can be recovered only u/s 292 of the Act, 1916 in the manner prescribed in Chapter-VI of Act, 1916. It was argued that as the rent is not due on the land and the rent allegedly payable by the petitioners, is not a tax, therefore, any alleged arrears cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Sec. 173-A or Sec. 291 of the Act, 1916. It was argued that under Chapter-VI of the Act, 1916, it was incumbent on the municipality to first raise a bill fulfilling the requirement of Sec. 167 of the Act, 1916 and on failure of the petitioners to satisfy the said bill, a demand notice was to be issued u/s 168 of the Act, 1916. In case the petitioners failed to pay as specified in the demand notice, the arrears can be recovered only by a warrant issued u/s 169 of the Act, 1916 and signed either by the President of the Municipality or any officer authorized for the said purpose or by the Executive Officer. The warrant can be executed only in the manner prescribed u/s 170, 171 and 172 of the Act, 1916 by sale of the movable property of the alleged defaulter. In their petitions, the petitioners have pleaded that no bills or any notice of demand as required u/s 167 and 168 of the Act, 1916 was served on the petitioners. No counter affidavit has been filed, rebutting the aforesaid averments. It was argued that in view of the aforesaid recovery certificates issued by the Executive Officer to the Collector/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), District Bareilly and the consequential recovery citations challenged in the Writ-C Nos. 48816 of 2012, 51960 of 2011, 913 of 2012, 42531 of 2011, 42669 of 2011 and 44245 of 2011 are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

(3.) Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad has argued that the recovery certificates and also the consequential recovery citations are according to law and the petitions are liable to be dismissed.