- (1.) Amreshwar Pratap Sahi 1.Heard Shri Pramod Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 5.
(2.) The petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate dated 4th June 2016 and the consequential citation dated 18th June, 2016 whereby a sum of Rs. 10 lacs(Ten Lacs) is sought to be realised from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue treating it to be an amount due and recoverable under Section 34 of the U.P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 34 are not attracted inasmuch as the arrears which are sought to be recovered are not of tax and therefore, Section 34 has been wrongly invoked to realise it as arrears of land revenue.
(3.) The contention therefore appears to be that the provision which has been invoked, is a wrong provision to realise the sum of Rs. 10 lacs (ten lacs) which are damages as contemplated under the Government Order dated 20th May, 2011. The argument is that damages cannot be realised as arrears of land revenue by invoking the provisions as referred to in the impugned certificate.;