JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 and Sri Brahmanand Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5/Bank.

2. The petitioner has assailed the recovery certificate dated 29.6.2019 issued by the respondent No. 5-Bank under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and attachment notice dated 14.1.2020 issued by the respondent No. 3 and consequential proceedings taken under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

3. The sole contention of Sri Jagannath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery proceedings taken out under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 are beyond jurisdiction. The applicant had taken an agricultural loan. The loan comes within the ambit of Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Agricultural Credit Act). The scheme of recovery under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 is distinct from the mode of recovery prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972.

4. Sri Brahmanand Singh, learned counsel for