By the Court.—Head Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by four petitioners (petitioner No. 2 having died during pendency of the writ petition, is substituted by his legal heirs), challenging recovery of Rs. 6,96,222.50/- in respect whereto impugned citation dated 24.4.2002 has been issued by Tehsildar, Nahtor, District - Bijnor. They have also challenged recovery certificate dated 4.4.2002, issued by U.P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P.F.C.’), requesting Collector, Bijnor to recover Rs. 8,98,222.50/- as arrears of land revenue, being outstanding amount of loan advanced by U.P.F.C., and recovery charges of Rs. 69,622.25/-, from petitioners.

3. Brief facts as stated in writ petition are that Ram Pal Singh (late) S/o Shadi Singh (late) constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Gramin Udhyog Shala Cane Crusher for manufacturing khandsari sugar. It obtained loan of Rs. 78,500/- in the year 1972-73, repayable in 10 years to U.P.F.C. Loanee committed default and could not repay instalments in time. Recovery certificate was issued against petitioners and the firm in the year 1979 to recover outstanding dues at that time as arrears of land revenue. Pursuant thereto, plant and machinery of manufacturing unit of firm was auctioned in 1980 and land and building was auctioned in 1981. Thereafter, petitioners did not hear anything. It is only on 4.4.2002, recovery certificate has been issued by U.P.F.C. pursuant whereto impugned citation has been issued by Tehsildar.

4. The recovery is challenged on various grounds taken in the writ petition but during course of arguments, it is confined to only one aspect, that it is barred by time.

5. On behalf of respondent No. 4, U.P.F.C. counter-affidavit has been filed sworn by Pankaj Kumar Saxena, Deputy Senior Manager (Law). It has given various details in respect of loan and subsequent events. It is said that in-lieu of loan advanced to the firm, M/s Gramin Udhyog Shala Cane Crusher, petitioners executed mortgage deed dated 6th January, 1973. In order to recover outstanding dues, recovery certificate was issued on 30th March, 1980, in furtherance whereof from Tehsildar, Dhampur, District - Bijnor, U.P.F.C. received Rs. 9551.90 and Rs. 17,956/- on 11th March, 1981 and 16th October, 1981 respectively. Petitioners were requesting U.P.F.C. to grant more time to clear the dues, but they failed to get time. Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1963') has no application in the aforesaid recovery and recovery certificate dated 4.4.2002, issued under Section 3 of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘U.P. Act, 1972’), is in terms of mortgage deed dated 6th January, 1973.

6. In the rejoinder-affidavit, petitioners have reiterated what they have said in writ petition.

7. Assailing impugned recovery, Sri Atul Mehra, counsel for petitioners pressed only one point that recovery in question is barred by limitation. In this regard he placed reliance on Apex Court’s judgment in State of Kerala and others v. V.R. Kalliyanikutty and another, AIR 1999 SC 1305; and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Narendra Kumar and another v. Collector, Bulandshahar and others, (2004) 2 UPLBEC 2037.

8. The issue of limitation raised by learned counsel for petitioners has to be examined in the light of following questions: (i) whether Act, 1963 is applicable to recovery proceedings of certain dues as arrears of land revenue through Revenue Authorities; (ii) whether there is a limitation prescribed for such recovery proceedings; (iii) whether bar under Section 3 of Act, 1963 shall be applicable to Financial institutions or authorities like U.P.F.C. or Collector in proceeding to recover dues under U.P. Act, 1972?

9. All these questions we propose to consider together.

10. There a