The Act does not provide any limitation for the recovery of sums due as arrears of land revenue, but the recovery must be made within a reasonable period. The court emphasized the importance of speedy recovery of public money and held that recovery proceedings can be barred by time if not initiated within a reasonable period.

( 1 ) THE questions that arise for consideration in this petition are whether there is any limitation for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of dues) Act, 1972, and if there is none, whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time?

( 2 ) THE petitioners constituted a registered partnership firm, known as Adarsh Aluminium industries to manufacture Aluminium Utensils. On 22. 10. 1973 an application was made by the firm to the U. P. Financial Corporation, Ghaziabad (in brief the Corporation) for granting loan of rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for establishing the unit. The Corporation on 15. 5. 1974 sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,80,000/ -. Out of he sanctioned amount a total sum of Rs. 1,38,700/was disbursed in instalments to the petitioners between 7. 4. 1975 to 17. 7. 1976. The entire amount of sanctioned loan was not disbursed, therefore, according to petitioners the unit could no go into production. The instalments were not paid, consequently the Corporation recalled the entire loan on 14. 9. 1978 and issued a recovery certificate on 2. 1. 1979 to the Collector under the U. P. Public moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (in brief the Act) for recovering its dues as arrears of land revenue.

( 3 ) THE Sub-Divisional Magistrate in recovery proceedings on 20. 8. 1981 auctioned the unit of the petitioners as well as the mortgaged Bhumidhari plot No. 439 belonging to the petitioner No. 2 kailash Chand, area 6 Biswa and 15 biswansi, situated in village Khanpur, Pargana Dhar, Tehsil anoopshahr, District Bulandshahr in favour of Shri Ved Prakash Sharma for Rs. 30,000/ -. The personal assets of the petitioners were auctioned for Rs. 3,500/ -. The Collector issued sale certificate on 20. 8. 1981. The petitioner No. 1 did not have any movable or immovable property and petitioner No. 2, after the auction sale, was left with no property. Only wearing apparels and utensils were spared. The Tehsildar after deducting the expenses, sent Rs. 30,134. 50/- on 20. 3. 1982 to the Corporation along with a report that there remained no property or personal assets with the petitioners, therefore, no further recovery was possible from them. The recovery certificate was sent back by the Collector to the Corporation. Thereafter no effort was made either by the Corporation or by the Collector to recover any amount from the petitioners for about eighteen years.

( 4 ) APART from the loan sanctioned by the Corporation in 1974 no other loan had been sanctioned or disbursed to the petitioners. The petitioners received a notice from the Corporation dated 29. 6. 2000 that they had taken loan of Rs. 1,38,700/- and till 20. 3. 2000 an amount of Rs. 48,03,281. 94/- was due against them. It was also mentioned in the notice that recovery certificate had been sent to the Collector, Bulandshahr for recovering the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue. The notice stated that they may come to the Corporation for taking the benefit of one time settlement scheme. On 30. 8. 2000 the Collector issued recovery certificate and citation was issued on 12. 9. 2000 by Tehsildar, Siyana and the petitioner Kailash Chand was arrested for recovering the aforesaid amount. The petitioners have challenged the recovery certificate dated 30. 8. 2000, citation dated 12. 9. 2000 and arrest by means of this petition.

( 5 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is stated that the loan was sanctioned in the year 1974 and recovery was initiated in 1979. In Paragraph 20 it is stated that the recovery authorities informed the Corporation that no further recovery from the petitioners was possible as no personal assets were available with them. Therefore, the matter was considered by the Board of Directors of the Corporation in the meeting held on 31. 3. 1986 and the remaining loan was waived off/written off. In Paragraph 21 of the counter affidav