By the Court.—Heard Sri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.B. Jauhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

2. The petitioners are sons of late Babu Singh who have assailed the recovery proceedings including the impugned citations dated 4.12.2017 pursuant to the notice dated 4.8.2017 on the ground that the amount which is sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue, being excess of payment in relation to an excess area as mentioned in the sale-deed, is impermissible in law, inasmuch as, here the land has been sold by means of a sale-deed and consideration amount was paid to the petitioner No. 1 and mother of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The same cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue on the ground that excess area had been mentioned in the sale-deed. According to him this would amount to interfering with the contract which has attained finality between the parties and the sale-deed is no where under challenge. He submits that the transaction is that of sale of immovable property through a registered document and is not an out come of any statutory intervention. The submission therefore, is that if there is any incorrect description of area or excess of payment on account of such description, then the same could have been recovered by the respondents only by filing a suit and not otherwise. The submission is that the citation issued by the Collector to recover the same as arrears of land revenue is per-se illegal and therefore interference is called for.

3. Replying to the said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Jauhari appearing on behalf of respondent Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority submits that averments made in paragraph 12 and 20 of the writ petition leave no room for doubt that the petitioners do not dispute the excess of the area, and consequential excess payment, and have also made an offer to make the said amount good by proposing to give some other land belonging to the petitioners. In this situation, this Court should not interfere with the recovery proceedings, more so, when a Division Bench of this Court in Shree Pal and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2012(9) ADJ 574 (DB), has categorically held that keeping in view the provisions as discussed therein recovery can be made as arrears of land revenue. He has further stated that another Division Bench of this very Court has refused to interfere in a matter arising out of similar circumstances in Writ-C No. 12270 of 2018 - Rami v. State of U.P. and 5 others, decided on 4.4.2018. The contention, therefore, is that even assuming for the sake of arguments, though not admitting, that recovery citation could not have been issued in the absence of statutory provisions authorising the same, it would not apply to the facts of the present case keeping in view the fact that the petitioners themselves have admitted the amount which has been paid in excess. The recovery proceedings therefore do not deserve to be interfered with.

4. Having considered the submissions, it is correct that this Court being a Court of equity, may not choose to interfere in the circumstances as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents so as to forestall the right of the respondent authority to recover the amount, but so far as position of law is concerned, we on appreciation of the facts involved in the present case as well as the law enunciated in the case of Shree Pal and others (supra) clearly find that if the amount of money sought to be recovered is not governed by any statutory provision, then there would be no occasion to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. This fundamental issue of law therefore requires to be settled inasmuch as in the present case we find that the sale-deed was executed in favour