- (1.) D. S. Sinha, J. Heard Sri Dhruva Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. C. Yadav, learned Standing counsel representing the respondents at length.
(2.) AT the behest and instance of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Con struction Division, Mathura, the respondent No. 4, a sum of Rs. 36,184 in respect of four agreements, containing conditions as are incorporated in I. D. Form No. Ill, a copy whereof is annexure '!' to this petition, is sought to be recovered from the petitioner for which purpose recovery proceedings have been initiated and requisite recovery certificate has been sent from the Collec tor, Mathura, the respondent No. 1, to the Collector Kanpur, the respondent No. 2. The petitioner asserts that the amount in question is sought to be realised under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890, as amended by the Revenue Recovery (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1965, hereinafter called the Act. According to him there is nothing in the Act which may em power either the respondent No. 4 to issue any certificate or may authorize any Collector to realise from the petitioner the disputed amount as arrear of land revenue and recovery proceedings are, therefore, without jurisdiction and void.
(3.) NEITHER in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents nor during the course of arguments on their behalf it is disputed that recovery of the disputed sum is being effected under the provisions of the Act. Sections 3 and 5 of the Act deal with recovery of sum due from a defaulter. In instant case, indisputably, the respondents are proceeding to ef fect recovery under Section 5 of the Act.;