- (1.) PALOK Basu, J. The judgment prepared by my esteemed Brother Hon'ble R. K. Mahajan, J. has been read. While agreeing with the conclusion that the writ petition should be dismissed it is desirable to mention few reasons for the same.
(2.) FACTS and the questions involved as to the recovery proceedings have already been narrated in the judgment of Hon'ble R. K. Mahajan, J. and are thus not repeated here. Admittedly the petitioner has filed arbitration proceedings, after that, the cita tion has been issued for recovering the amount allegedly outstanding. Therefore, the petitioner is taking both the remedies. While it is true that Section 287-A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act calles upon an objector to deposit the entire money sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, whether in each and every case that provisions shall have to be resorted to need not be decided in this petition. In the counter-affidavit two relevant paragraphs are very important from the point of view of going into the question as to whether the petitioners' writ petition should be adjudicated upon. Paragraph 3 (A), (B), (C) and (D) are quoted here for ready reference. 3. That before giving parawise reply of the writ petition, it is necessary to bring certain facts of the case before this Hon'ble Court which are as under: (A) That for executing the contract for the construction of Ravasan Super Passage Tender was invited by the Irrigation Department. The petitioner also submitted his tender which was accepted by the Irrigation Department and for executing the said obstruction work agreement was executed between the Irrigation Department and the petitioner on 20-5-1983 for a cost of Rs. 2, 29, 37, 990. The time for completion of said project was only 24 months from 20-5-1983 to 19-5-1985. (B) That as per the agreement for the said construction several materials such as Cement, Iron Steel etc. were required to be supplied by the department to the petitioner's construction com pany and the cost of said building materials were to be adjusted/deducted from the intermediate payments. Apart from building materials several machinery such as Concrete Mixer, Pumping Sets etc. were also required to be given to the petitioner's company on hire and their hire costs were to be adjusted from the intermediate pay ments. (C) That the petitioner's company could not complete the construction work of the said project within the stipulated time of 24 months as such he was defaulter, but on his request the department has extended the time for completion of the con struction up to 30-6-1987 i. e. for further 2 years, but the petitioner's company could not complete the construction work and he left the work incom plete with ulterior motive and with mala fide in tention to defraud i he department. (D) That it is relevant to mention here that during these periods the petitioner's company has taken a large quantities of Cement bags, Iron Steel and other construction materials from the department and several machineries were also supplied to him by the department. While leaving the construction work incomplete the petitioner has taken away the remaining building materials and several machinaries of the department. " In reply put forward by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit all that has been stated in reply to the aforesaid paragraphs is, if read together, "that the respondent No. 3 has not annexed any document to substantiate the allegations of al leged default on the part of the petitioner (1 ). As such the allegation cannot be taken note of. Infact the non-co-operation on the part of the depart ment was with ulterior motive. . . . . . "the inaction in not lodging the F. I. R. or complaint to higher authorities is sufficient to make the version of the Respondent No. 3 unbelievable. . . . . . . . . . "merely be cause the respondent No. 3 says that a calculation was done and an amount of Rs. 52, 42, 749. 47 paisa has been found to be due against the petitioner cannot be accepted. "
(3.) AS is, therefore, obvious the petitioner did not complete the work con tracted and has beenprima facie justifiably charged with removal of machinery, materials and other articles of the depart ment. The recovery proceedings therefore, are valid on facts. The last argument advanced by Shri Ajit Kumar was that since the petitioner is a company its assets may be proceeded with in the recovery of the amount but the personal property of the petitioners cannot be at tached or proceeded with in recovery proceedings.;