- (1.) CAUSE list revised. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under one time settlement entire amount has already been deposited by the petitioner but now the re­spondents are compelling the petitioner to deposit the recovery charges to the tune of Rs.46,500/-.
(2.) THE question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether when the entire amount has already been paid under one time settlement the authorities have got right to ask for recovery charges more so when they have not done anything. In brief; the opposite parties had sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- as loan to the petitioner to run the factory with regard to bat­tery, battery plates etc. It appears that on ac­count of default of payment of dues, U.P. Fi­nancial Corporation (in short 'Corporation') had referred the matter to the revenue authori­ties to recover the dues as arrears of land rev­enue. However, on 21-8-2002, a letter was issued by the opposite party No.2 with regard to one time settlement in response to which the petitioner had deposited the entire dues. After deposition of the entire dues, a letter dated 18-10-2002 was issued by the corpora­tion to the revenue authorities for not proceeding with the recovery proceedings, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner has already deposited the entire amount/dues, it is not open for the respondent to press for payment of recovery charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court re­ported in AIR 1983 All. 234; Mirza Javed Murtaza v. U.P. Financial Corporation, Kanpur and another and R.D. 2002 Page 689; Vijai Singh v. State of U.P. and others.
(3.) IN the case of Mirza Javed Murtaza (su­pra), a Division Bench of this Court had ob­served that recovery charges may be levied only when the actual sale of the property takes place. (Para-16);