Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) GAON Panchayat, Kulpahar, district Hamipur appears to have auctioned the right to collect the Tehbazari dues within its territories. In the auction the Respondent No. 1 made tae highest bid of Rs. 9,999/. Gaon Panchayat entered into a contract with him wherein, for payment of tae amount, the Respondent was given the right to collect Tehbazari dues. According to the terms of the contract, the Respondent paid 2/3 of the contract amount at that time. He however defaulted in payment of Rs. 3,333/ -. The Gaon Panchayat initiated proceedings for recovery as if it were an arrear of land revenue. The recovery proceedings were challenged by way of a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that none of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the Panchayat Raj Act or the Gram Samaj Manual authorised the recovery of such contractual sums as arreas of laud revenue. We are in agreement with the reasoning and the conclusion reached by the learned single Judge.
(2.) THE case is directly covered by Mumtaz Ali v. Sub -Divisional Magistrate, 1970 AWR 6. There also the Town Area Committee tried to recover the balance of a contractual sum, for which the right to realise Tehbazari was auctioned, as arrears of land revenue. The proceedings for recovery were quashed as being without jurisdiction it was held that the Petitioner himself was not liable to pay any Tehbazari Tax. In fact he had undertaken a contract to collect that tax and to pay the Town Area Committee a fixed sum of Rs. 13,500/. This sum was not the amount of Tehbazari tax. It was a premium for the right to collect that tax. It was the consideration of the contract given to him by the Town Area Committee. This sum therefore could not be characterised as arrears of tax within the meaning of Section 21 of the Town Areas Act and Section 173 -A of the U.P. Municipalities Act. In the present case, learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon Section 225 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act under which arrears of rent, sayer or other dues due in respect of the property vesting in the Central, State Government, or any Gaon Sabha or a local authority may be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Undeniably, the amount sought to be recovered is neither arrears of land revenue nor Sayer. The question is whether they will be dues in respect of property which vested in the Gaon Sabha. Right to collect Tehbazari was contracted; the consideration whereof could not be said to be a sum due in respect of any particular property vesting in the Gaon Sabha. The Respondent was not liable to pay to the Gaon Sabha any dues in respect of property of the Gaon Sabha used by it. The amount sought to be recovered was the balance of a contracted sum of money payable to the Gaon Sabha under the contract following upon an auction. This sum was not directly relateable to any obligation upon the Respondent in respect of any property vesting in the Gaon Sabha. The amount represented consideration for a contract taken by the Respondent from the Gaon Sabha irrespective of the amount that the Respondent may be able to realise from any particular person who was using Gaon Sabha land and as such liable to pay Tehbazari dues. The Respondent's liability was independent of any property vesting in the Gaon Sabha The amaunt sought to be recovered could not hence be within the purview of Section 225 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned single Judge was in our opinion justified in quashing the proceedings.
(3.) THE appeal has no substance and is accordingly dismissed. We however make no order as to costs.;