- (1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(2.) The issue which has been raised before us by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that for merely issuing a citation it is not open to the Respondents to realise collection charges. That issue was before us for consideration in Special Appeal No. 1036 of 2010, Chinta Mani v. State of U. P. and Ors., decided on 5.7.2010. At the same time our attention is invited to another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mange Ram and Anr. v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2010 4 ADJ 390. In Mange Ram (supra), the question for consideration before the Court was whether the cost of collection of recovering land revenue or a sum as an arrear of land revenue can at all be recovered or realised from the defaulter when the recovery has not been made through the process/machinery of the Collector under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act/Rules despite provisions under the Act to realise 10% of the amount as collection charges.
(3.) After considering the various provisions, the learned Bench was pleased to observe that on a plain reading of Section 10 alongwith Rule 8 of the Rules, it is clearly brought out that the Recovering Authority has to remit the amount to the authority concerned after deducting the collection charges, if any. The learned Bench then observed that this envisages deducting of collection charges only after recovering the amount and before remitting the same to the authority concerned. The necessary corollary of the above is that in the absence of any recovery of the amount due as an arrear of land revenue, no collection charge can be levied and realised. What was considered in Mange Ram (supra) was that though the citation may have been issued, yet the money was not recovered under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and as no service was rendered, it was not open to recover the cost. That is not the position in the present case and the judgment in Mange Ram (supra) is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.;