GOVINDA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions have been filed assailing the notice issued in terms of Section 173-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 seeking to recover the amount allegedly due against the petitioners in respect of their occupation of agricultural land of the sewerage farm within the Municipality of Mathura.

(2.) It is stated by the petitioners that they were occupying the land in terms of an agreement and consequently, they would be governed by the terms of the agreement and any amount allegedly due cannot be recovered in terms of Section 173-A of the 1916 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S.K. Pandey relies on a Division Bench judgment in the case of Abrar Hussain v. District Magistrate/Collector & others, Writ-C No. 40319 of 2006 (decided on 26.11.2013) to substantiate his submission.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Municipal Corporation and Sri Saurabh Tiwari learned counsel submits that such issues can also be dealt with by the Chairman of the Nagar Palika Parishad keeping in view the terminology used in the agreement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He has invited the attention of the Court to clause (8) of the agreement read with the penultimate clause relating to the forum for resolution of any dispute concerning the effect of the contract. The same are extracted hereunder:-