M/S A.P.S. Associates Thru ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 5993 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 16425 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S A.P.S. Associates Thru Proprietor Shailendra Singh & Anr
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vyas Narayan Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent - Punjab National Bank.

The sole submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that the amount which has been recovered as arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered by adopting the said mode for the reason that the loan to the petitioner was not advanced under any State sponsored scheme.

The recovery of the amount in question is being made against the petitioners under the provisions of U.P. Public Money Recovery of Dues Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1972"). According to Section 3 of the Act, 1972, recovery as arrears of land revenue can be made only under certain circumstances, including in a case where any person is party to any agreement relating to a loan advanced or granted by a Banking Company or Government Company as the case may be, under any State sponsored scheme.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that State sponsored scheme "has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act, 1972", which means a scheme sponsored by way of financial assistance by the State Government under which the State Government either advances money to the Banking Company or Government Company for the purposes of disbursing loan.

So far as scheme under which the petitioner has been granted financial assistance by the Respondent - Punjab National Bank, in this case, is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank has fairly conceded that financial assistance provided to the petitioner, is not under any State sponsored scheme in terms of the provisions contained in Section 3 read with Section 2(g) of the Act, 1972.

Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid submissions, recovery of the amount due against the petitioners cannot even be made as arrears of land revenue.

The proceedings for recovery, thus, initiated by the respondent - bank against the petitioners are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed.

However, it is always open to the respondent - Bank to take appropriate legal recourse which may be available to it for recovery of the amount which may be due against the petitioner.

Order Date :- 9.7.2019

A. Verma