Vivek Chaudhary, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and Sri Satyanshu Ojha, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) The facts of the present case are that petitioners took two agricultural loans from respondent Bank. Petitioners could not regularly deposit instalments and defaulted the same. In the said circumstances, Bank initiated process to recover the dues as arrears of land revenue. Tehsildar, Tehsil Mahsi, district Bahraich, therefore, at the instance of Bank, issued two recovery certificates to both the petitioners of "Rs. 12,85,701/- + others" on 05.05.2017. Admittedly, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 12,85,701/- is the total loan amount due. For the payment of said liability without any further steps being taken, at the instance of revenue authorities, petitioners deposited with the Tehsildar an amount of Rs. 99,990/. Tehsildar issued receipt of the said deposit in the breakup of Rs. 49,000/- for the Bank and further Rs. 4,900/- as 10% recovery charges for the same and an amount of Rs. 41,900/- for the Bank and Rs. 4,190/- as 10% revenue charges for the same. Thus out of Rs. 99,990/- 10% was deducted and kept by Tehsildar as collection charges and the remaining amount was sent to the Bank.
(3.) Large number of recovery certificates are coming to this Court where Tehsildars across the State are, after referring to the amount due add further vague demand by word 'Anya' etc., i.e. other charges, in the recovery citations and in the garb of said words are arbitrarily charging as recovery charges undue amounts from marginal farmers and poor persons, most of whom are illiterate and have no knowledge of law.;