HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1021 of 2012 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. A notice was issued to the respondent no.5 - bank vide order dated 20.08.2025 for engaging another counsel as the previous counsel was elevated to the Bench of this Court. However, despite service of notice, none has put in appearance for the bank. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.04.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 20132 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Rampur was dismissed. 3. Writ petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 16.03.2012 whereby the District Magistrate rejected the prayer of the appellant to exempt 10% recovery charges. The appellant, an agriculturalist, took agricultural loan from respondent no. 5- bank. A citation was issued by the Tehsildar for recovery of a sum of Rs.11 Lakh as outstanding against the appellant towards loan and recovery citation was issued. The appellant deposited the dues with the respondent no. 5 - bank. Whereafter, qua 10% collection charges sought to be recovered from the appellant, the appellant moved an application seeking waiver, which was rejected by the impugned order. 4. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the recovery charges were statutory in nature and in absence of any provision, the same cannot be waived and consequently, dismissed the writ petition. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prajyot Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vipin Sinha, Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C. Jasbir Singh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that issue, as raised in the petition, stands squarely covered by larger Bench judgement in Mahrajwa and others v. State of U.P. & others : Writ-C No. 56175 of 2011 decided on 09.01.2013 whereby the larger Bench resolving the conflict between judgement in Mange Ram and another v. State of U.P. & others : 2010(2) CRC 216 and Chinta Mani v. State of U.P. & others : 2011(1) AWC 637 held that judgement in Mange Ram (Supra) laid down the correct law and decision in the case of Chinta Mani (Supra) did not lay down the correct law. The larger Bench inter-alia laid down as under : "From the aforesaid decisions, it is absolutely clear that it has to be seen as to under what Act the recovery has been initiated. Whether it is under 1890 Act, 1950 Act or 1973 Act. If the recovery proceedings have been initiated under 1890 Act then in that event if the recovery is being made under Section 3 of the Act then cost of recovery would be 10% of the amount stated in the certificate. However, if recovery certificate has been issued but no recovery had been made by the State authorities, who had issued the recovery certificate as for example the defaulter directly deposits the amount or the recovery certificate is withdrawn or cancelled for any reason whatsoever then in that event there is no question of charging any costs of recovery. At best the fee for the process mentioned in 1952 Rules can be levied. However, if the recovery certificate has been issued under Section 5 of 1890 Act then there is no question of any cost of recovery being realised as the State Government has not yet issued any notification specifying any rate. If the recovery has been issued under 1973 Act then in that case realisation of recovery charges by the State authorities can be made from the defaulter only where the entire amount had been recovered by the authorities of the State. If the recovery as arrears of land revenue is being made by invoking the provisions of 1950 Act then in that event the fee prescribed under 1952 Rules for various process for realisation of arrears of land revenue while selling moveable and immovable properties and also where properties are not sold alone is payable. It appears that this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judges who decided the case of Chinta Mani(supra). We are, therefore, in respectful agreement with the view taken by this Court in the case of Mange Ram & Anr.(supra) and hold that the decision in the case of Chinta Mani(supra) does not lay down the correct law. " (emphasis supplied) 6. From the determination made by the larger Bench, it is clear that if a recovery certificate has been issued but no recovery has been made by the SPLA No. 1021 of 2012 2 State authority, which had issued the recovery certificate on account of direct deposit made by the defaulter, in that event, there is no question of charging any cost of recovery. 7. In the present case, as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant, under the direction of the Court in the writ petition filed by him whereby he was required to deposit the amount in installments, had deposited the amount, the issue would be covered by the determination made by the larger Bench and the appellant would not be liable to pay the cost of recovery. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.04.2012 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 20132 of 2012 is set aside. 9. The rejection of the appellant's application by the District Magistrate, Rampur by order dated 16.03.2012, Annexure-1, and recovery certificate pertaining to recovery of cost, if any, shall stand quashed. September 19, 2025 nd SPLA No. 1021 of 2012 3 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad