DUDH NATH DUBEY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGAINST the recovery certificate issued to the Petitioner for certain electricity dues, there was an application made by the Petitioner Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. The court below has rejected the same taking the view in face of Section 330 of the U.P. Seminary Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the application could not be maintained.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel contends that the application brought by the Petitioner in the court below Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act could not have been treated as a suit within the meaning of Section 330 of the U.P. Seminary Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Section 330 lays down, in so far as relevant, that save as otherwise by or under this Act, no suit or other proceeding shall lie in any civil court in respect of recovery of sum of money recoverable as arrears of revenue. Even though an application made Under Section 20 is to be registered as a suit and the parties thereto are to be treated as Plaintiffs and Defendants respectively, as provided in Sub -section (2) of Section 20, leaving that question open and without going into this, since that may not be strictly required, there may be no denying that the application itself amounts to initiating legal proceedings in a court of law. Section 330 creates a bar not only against a suit being instituted but also against any other proceeding being initiated which has the effect or claim to effect or restrain in any manner the recovery of any sum of money recoverable as land revenue. The question to be gone into, really speaking, is whether there is anything also contained in the U.P. Act I of 1951 which may permit the reference to the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. For that purpose the relevant provision may be found contained in Section 287A of U.P. Act 1 of 1951. This lays down in a essence that whenever proceedings are taken for recovery of any sum of money recoverable as arrears of revenue, the person concerned may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment, the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may sue the State Government in the Civil court for the amount so paid and in such suit the Plaintiff may, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 278, give evidence of the amount which he allege to be due from him. This then is the relevant provision. Recourse to it can be had by the Petitioner depending upon the payment made by him under protest to the officer concerned of the amount claimed under the recovery. This admittedly he has not done.

(3.) IN face of Sub -section (4) as reproduced above, there is a bar again to the Petitioner taking recourse to as done by him in the present, without having made deposit of the amount claimed there under. Sub -section (4) also in a essence requires the deposit by the Petitioner of the amount in question before he can take recourse to proceedings in arbitration for adjudication of his liability in the matter or of the amount to which he is liable, if any. This being in the nature of a special provision contemplated Under Section 46 of the Arbitration Act, it shall prevail over what is laid down in the general terms in Section 20 thereof.