CHANDRA SHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision arises out of award dated June 30, 1999 passed by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal, in Reference Case No. 30/94. Present Petitioner had filed reference before the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, for quashing the revenue recovery certificate of alleged outstanding Government dues amounting to Rs. 1,28,236/ - and for permanently restraining the Respondents to recover the said amount or any other amount from the Petitioner. Petitioner had entered into a work contract under agreement No. II/DL of the year 1985 -86 in Kolar Project, District Sehore. On behalf of the State Government agreement was signed by Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Hoshangabad. It was undisputed that there was a clear contract between the parties as required by Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The case of the Petitioner, in short, was that as per terms and conditions of the agreement it was duty of the department to prepare final bill of the Petitioner but in spite of reminders the final bill was not prepared by the department. Petitioner's attorney was in collusion with the department. The department had not issued any show cause notice calling upon the Petitioner to pay the alleged outstanding recovery in respect of final bill. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Hoshangabad had written to Collector, Karimnagar (A. P.) with the approval of Superintending Engineer, Central Narmada Circle, Hoshangabad, M.P. initiated the recovery proceedings of Rs. 1,28,236/ -. Notices from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial, District Karimnagar (A. P.) were affixed at the outer wall of house No. 2 -2 -1972 belonging to Petitioner's elder brother. Proceedings were objected to. The Petitioner approached higher officers of the department but without any result. Petitioner submitted that aforesaid amount cannot be recovered as arrear of land revenue.

(2.) THE M.P. Arbitration Tribunal has considered the question of recovery and came to the conclusion that Petitioner was entitled for certain adjustments to be made. Security amount was also ordered to be adjusted.Arbitration Tribunal quashed the revenue recovery certificate dated February 10, 1992 amounting to Rs. 1,28,236/ - and ordered that the Respondents 1 to 3, i.e., State Government, Superintending Engineer, Central Narmada Circle, Hoshangabad, and Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Hoshangabad could recover Rs. 75,623/ -. Thus, the part of the recovery initiated has been quashed. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that even for making the recovery of any amount before issuing revenue recovery certificate it was necessary for the Government to approach M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, get dispute adjudicated. He has submitted that that the provision of recovery which initiated earlier of recovery of amount as an arrear of land revenue under the provisions of M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 stands excluded until and unless the dispute is adjudicated by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal in view of Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam runs as under:

(3.) ALTHOUGH under Sub -section (1) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam it is apparent that either of the parties can refer dispute arising from work contract to Arbitration Tribunal, the plain language used in Section 7 enables even the Government to file reference under Section 7. Under Section 7 -B of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 there is a provision of limitation. Section 7 -B(l)(a) provides that Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract. It would be beneficial to quote Section 7 -B(l)(a) which runs as under: