Contractual rent owed to a Nagar Palika cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

The petitioner was allotted a shop owned by Nagar Palika Parishad, Swar, Rampur, in 1998 for a fifteen-year term, but possession was delivered only in November 2006.

Following a Nagar Palika resolution dated 30 December 2006, the petitioner agreed to pay rent from November 2006 and regularly deposited the rent thereafter.

The Executive Officer subsequently demanded rent for the period preceding November 2006—stated to be July 1999 to November 2006—and directed recovery of ₹1,07,800 as arrears of land revenue.

The Tahsildar issued the impugned recovery citation dated 14 September 2009 for the said amount, together with interest and recovery charges.

The Nagar Palika defended the citation under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and contended that the underlying demand had not been challenged.

Whether contractual arrears of rent payable to a Nagar Palika Parishad could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 173-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916.

Whether such rent could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

Whether the impugned recovery citation was sustainable despite the petitioner’s challenge being directed principally against the recovery process rather than the underlying demand.

Section 173-A of the Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 permits recovery as arrears of land revenue only of sums due to a Municipality on account of a tax, other than a tax payable upon immediate demand.

Contractual dues, including rent or theka money, do not fall within that provision and cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue; the principle was reaffirmed in Ram Bilas Tibrewal v. Chairman, Municipal Corporation Board, Titri Bazar, 1998 All LJ 249, and Titu Singh v. District Magistrate/Collector, Mathura, (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1283.

Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 applies to specified loans, advances, grants, guarantees, or agreements involving the State Government, a notified Corporation, a banking company, or a Government company, subject to the statutory conditions in Section 3(1).

Under Section 2(a), “Corporation” principally means the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation and other Central or State Government-owned or controlled corporations notified by the State Government; a Nagar Palika Parishad does not fall within that definition merely because it is a statutory local body.

The principle in Nand Kishor v. Collector/District Magistrate, Rampur, 2011 (2) ALJ 50, was also applied: municipal rent may be recoverable through a civil suit, subject to limitation, but not through recovery proceedings under the land-revenue machinery.

The Court held that the amount claimed was rent arising from the petitioner’s tenancy and not a municipal tax.

Consequently, Section 173-A of the 1916 Act could not authorise its recovery as arrears of land revenue.

The Court further rejected reliance on Section 3 of the 1972 Act because the dues were neither a loan, advance, grant, guarantee, or other qualifying public-money obligation, and Nagar Palika Parishad was not the State Government or a “Corporation” contemplated by that Act.

The fact that the Nagar Palika may have had a contractual claim for rent did not confer jurisdiction on the Tahsildar to use coercive land-revenue recovery proceedings.

The Court expressly left open the substantive question whether rent was legally payable for the period during which possession had not been delivered, holding only that even assuming the rent was due, the chosen mode of recovery was impermissible.

The objection that the demand note itself had not been challenged did not cure the fundamental lack of statutory authority for the recovery citation.

The recovery citation dated 14 September 2009 issued by the Tahsildar, Swar, Rampur, was quashed, and the writ petition was allowed.

The Nagar Palika was left at liberty to recover any legally due amount through another mode permissible in law, including an appropriate civil remedy, subject to limitation.

No order as to costs was made.