The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the recovery proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, and the applicability of Section 11 and Section 11-A in justifying the bank's actions.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Pandey learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.

2. The petitioner took a loan from the Allahabad Bank for purchase of a tractor. It is stated by the petitioners Counsel that this loan was taken in the year 1999 and was repayable in instalments over a period of nine years. It appears that the petitioner defaulted. The Bank initiated recovery proceedings. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the citation issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar and the recovery proceedings and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioner. The petitioner has not disputed having taken the loan. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition he has expressed his grievance that compound interest is being charged, which the Bank could not. The petitioners contention is that the recovery certificate ought to have been sent to the Up- Ziladhikari and not to the Collector and further that the prescribed authority alone could pass an order for recovery under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the recovery is time-barred in view of Section 11-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has filed objections in this regard before the Tehsildar. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which a statement of account has been annexed by the Bank in which the present outstanding dues have been shown to be Rs. 1,87,450/- upto 30th September, 2006. It is also alleged that the recovery certificate has been sent to the Collector under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.

3. I have considered the submission made by the parties Counsel. In my opinion none of the contentions has any merit.

4. A copy of the recovery certificate has been annexed alongwith counter-affidavit. It is headed under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 but it was sent to the Collector as is clear from the averments made in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit. A citation has also been issued by the Tehsildar. It is well-settled that the validity of an action cannot be judged merely with reference to the section under which it purports to have been taken if the action can be supported by another provision, which confers validity upon it. In this case the dues are being recovered as arrears of land revenue. In such a case the recovery certificate is to be sent to the Collector under Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The said provision contains a non-obstante clause. The power under this provision is without prejudice to the power of the Bank to take proceedings under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The Bank could therefore send the recovery certificate to the Collector exercising powers under Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court in Ram Sajivan Shukla v. The Collector, District Faizabd & Ors. , ALR 2002 (46) 820. The said case is distinguishable. The provisions of Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 have not been considered therein. The Court was interpreting Section 11 of the Act and took the view

that the recovery is to be ordered by the Prescribed Authohty/s. D. O. The matter has been considered by the Division Bench in Dr. Aziz Haider v. State, 1987 (1) A. W. C. 750. This Court considered the provisions of Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act and held that recourse can be taken to it without prejudice to other modes of recovery. The Bank was, therefore, justified in sending the recovery certificate to the Collector and its action would fall under Section 11-A of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.

5. It was then submitted