R. R. K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) SRI Hari Ashok Kumar has put in appearance for respondent No. 3 Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda, Farrukhabad. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for respondents No. 1 & 2. In my opinion, this petition can be disposed of finally at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
(2.) IN this petition recovery of an amount of Rs. 24,58,162/- as land revenue arrears has been challenged by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that respondent No. 3 gave a cash credit working facility to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 16th March, 1988 and also gave a term loan of Rs 7.5 Lacs in the year 1988, for the building and machinery i. e. Ice plant and Milk Chilling Plant. The said loan was repayable with interest upto December, 1993. It has ;been further submitted that due to losses suffered by the petitioners the amount could not be paid in time. Respondent No. 3, however, has issued recovery certificate under section 11-A of the Agriculture Credit Act, 1973 for realisation of the aforesaid amount as land revenue arrears on which basis citation has been served on petitioners to pay the amount Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that transaction being a commercial one it could not be realised as agricultural loan. It has been further submitted that though the citation was served fixing date 19th February, 1993, petitioners were arrested on 18th February, 1993. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that this arrest was illegal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner have no merits. It is not denied that amount has been advanced to the petitioners by Public Undertaking i?e. the Bank of Baroda which is a Nationalised Bank and also a Corporation registered under the Companies Act. Thus, the amount due from the petitioners could be recovered under the provisions of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 i.e. U. P. Act No. 23 of 1972 as amended by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1975. Section 3 of the aforesaid Act provides interalla that where any person is party to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government (or the Corporation) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 3 (1) Clause (d) Is being reproduced below :- 3". Recovery of certain does as arrears of land revenue-(1) Where any person is party- (a).................... ; or (b)..................; or (c) .................. ; or (d) to any agreement providing that any money payable thereunder to the State Government (or the Corporation) (Inserted by U. P. Act 17 of 1973 w.e.f. March 31, 1975) shall, be recoverable as arrears of land revenue ; and such person- (i) makes any default in repayment of the loan or advance or any Instalment thereof ; or (ii) having become liable under the conditions of the grant to refund the grant or any portion thereof, makes any default in the refund of such grant or portion or any instalment thereof ; or (iii) otherwise fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, Inserted by U. P. Act 17 of 1975 w.e f. March 31, 1975.) then, in the case of the State Government, such officer as may be authorised in that behalf by the State Government by notification in the official Gazette, and in the case of the Corporation or a Government Company the Managing Director (or where there is no Managing Director then the Chairman of the Corporation, by whatever name called) (Inserted by U. P. Act 17 of 1975 w.e.f. March 31, 1975) thereof, and in the case of a banking company, the local agent thereof, by whatever name called, may send a certificate to the Collector, mentioning the sum due from such person and requesting that such sum together with costs of the proceedings be recovered as if it were an arrear of land revenue. (2) The Collector on receiving the certificate shall proceed to recover the amount stated therein as an arrear of land revenue, (3) No salt for the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie In the civil court against any person referred to in sub-section (1). As appears from the provisions contained in Clause (d) of Section 3 (1) it is clear that the amount payable to Corporation could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under an agreement. No where in the petition existence of any such agreement has been denied by the petitioners After the amendment of 1975 by U. P. Act No. 17 of 1975 all the amounts payable to the Corporation could be recovered as arrears of land revenue if the agreement under which the amount was advanced, contained condition in this regard As already stated it was not the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no such agreement exists in favour of respondent No. 3 to recover the amount advanced as cash credit facility or as term loan as land revenue arrears. In my opinion, recovery of the amount cannot be challenged merely on the ground that the recovery certificate has been issued ((*) inserted by U. P. Act 17 of 1975 w.e.f March 31, 1975) under a wrong provision, if the authority to recover the amount as arrears of the land revenue can be justified under the provisions of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, it could not be disputed merely because the recovery certificate was Issued under a wrong provision of law. Legal position in this regard is well settled.
(3.) SECOND submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners were arrested on 18th February, 1993 though the citation served on them was in respect of 19th February, 1993 No doubt, the revenue authorities should not have arrested, the petitioner before the date fixed in the citation to appear. However, it is not denied that petitioners have been released thereafter, when the petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-However, it is noticeable that the respondents can proceed and adopt simultaneously more than one mode for recovery of the amount. Since the petitioners have already been released same day after depositing the aforesaid amount, I need not say anything in this regard. Learned counsel for petitioners also relied on an order passed by this Court on 17 February, 1993 by which this court stayed the recovery in Identical circumstances. In my opinion, the order relied upon is interlocatory and cannot be relied on as precedent. Since this petition is being disposed of finally no help can be given to the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioner ultimately submitted that petitioners were prepared to pay amount provided they are given reasonable time. Considering facts and circumstances, this petition is disposed of finally with the direction that in case the petitioners deposit Rs 5,00,000/- on or before 31st March, 1993 and further pay remaining amount in seven equal instalments payable on 30th June, 1993 30th September, 1993, 31st December, 1993, 31st March, 1994, 30th June, 1994. 30th September, 1994, and 31st December, 1994, recovery shall remain stayed. In case of default, however In payment of any of the instalments, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with recovery of whole amount. If the whole amount is paid In accordance with the schedule fixed by this order, petitioners shall be entitled for exemption of recovery charges to the extent of 50% which shall be given adjustment in the last instalment.;