- (1.) HEARD Sri S. U. Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Singh, learned Counsel of Zila Parishad, Moradabad, the respondent No. 1 and Sri Vinay Malaviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U. P. , representing the respondents No. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
(2.) FOR recovering as arrears of land revenue a sum of Rs. 26,000 towards deficient stamp duty and penalty, a citation dated 16th September, 1992 has been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the said amount. A photo copy of the citation is Annexure III to the petition. A notice dated 1st June, 1991 was also issued to the petitioner from the office of Zila Parishad, Moradabad, the respondent No. 1, intimating him that there was deficiency in payment of stamp duty on an agreement alleged to have been executed in the year 1989 in connection with a contract for collection of fee from vehicles due to the respondent No. 1. The notice also intimates that the petitioner was liable to pay penalty. The total amount payable by the petitioner, according to the notice, is Rs. 26,000. The notice required the petitioner to deposit the money and warned that in case of default the same would be realised through the agency of Collector. The citation and the notice are under challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel of the petitioner contends that no written agreement between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 was ever executed. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that no proceeding contemplated by law was ever initiated against the petitioner. He also contends that the petitioner was never given any opportunity of defending himself. In these circumstances, learned Counsel submits, the impugned citation and notice are bad and liable to be quashed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Zila Parishad, Moradabad. The respondents No. 2,3,4 and 5 have not filed counter-affidavit.;