Hon. A. N. Mittal, J.
1. We have heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sudha Pandey appears for the Punjab National Bank-respondent no.6. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
2. The pleadings have been exchanged and thus with the consent of the parties, the writ petition was heard.
3. This writ petition is directed against the recovery proceedings initiated by the Punjab National Bank against the petitioner by forwarding a recovery certificate to the Collector, Aligarh under Section 11A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (for short U.P. Act of 1973) read with Rule 27 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975, for recovering an amount of Rs.3,56,99,410/- as on 31.10.2011 with further interest at the rate of 15.5% thereon towards the term loans namely term loan no.1 dated 6.11.2007 of Rs.200 lacs; term loan no.2 dated 30.3.2009 for Rs.50 lacs, term loan no.3 dated 30.3.2009 for Rs.14.28 lacs and the working capital loan dated 30.11.2007 for Rs.110 lacs.
4. The entire outstanding amount of loan is sought to be recovered from M/s Alka Ice and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, which has its registered office at 82, Avas Evam Vikas Colony, G.T. Road, Aligarh through its Director Shri Mohan Singh, Smt. Usha Singh, Smt. Alka Singh and Shri Kamal Singh for which they have mortgaged their agricultural (bhumidhari) land detailed in the recovery certificate. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing citation dated 26.12.2011 issued by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad for the outstanding amount, as disclosed in the recovery certificate and interest and recovery charges.
5. This is the second writ petition against the recovery of the loans sanctioned, disbursed and utilised by the petitioner to establish a cold storage on mortgaged land and machinery. Earlier the bank had initiated proceedings for recovery by giving notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 after classifying the account as non-performing asset (NPA) on 1.10.2008 on the defaults committed by the petitioner. The notice was challenged in Writ Petition No.64263 of 2009 in which the High Court directed the respondents by order dated 4.12.2009 to decide the objections and until the objections are decided no coercive steps were to be taken. The bank has dropped the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 as it could not have proceeded to attach and sale the agricultural properties in view of the bar under Section 31 (i) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The bank has thereafter initiated the proceedings for recovery under the U.P. Act of 1973.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after receiving notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Directors of the company approached the respondent bank to represent and plead the hardships in the repayment of the loan amount and requested to grant some time. It is stated that the respondent bank agreed and consequently the company deposited Rs.28,22,000/- in cash credit account from 25.3.2010 to 5.11.2011. Since an amount of Rs.8,89,740/- was deposited in excess in the cash credit account, the bank transferred the balance amount to the term loan account, thus reducing the outstanding balance in the term loan account.
7. It is submitted that on 30.11.2011 the Director of the company in accordance with the reply to the notice dated 23.11.2011 pointed out illegalities in the notice given by the bank demanding the outstanding amount and the rate of interest, which was excessive. On 30.11.2011 a letter was sent by the bank to the petitioner to approach it for One Time Settlement. A Director of the company attended the camp on 12.12.2011. He was required to submit a detailed proposal for repayment of the outstanding amount upto 25.12.2011. On 23.12.2011 the proposal was revised to be accepted by the bank. Thereafter the petitioner approached the bank many times but no one attended and heard his difficulties. The bank, thereafter, sent the recovery certificate under the U.P. Act of 1973 giving rise to this writ petition. One of the Directors of the bank namely Shri Kamal Singh challenged the recovery in Writ Petition No.1233 of 2012, which was withdrawn as he had alleged there was likelihood of compromise with the bank.
8. It is submitted that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Suresh Chandra Gupta v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar, AIR 2005 Alld. 320 the respondent bank cannot recover the outstanding amount form the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. The bank, if it wanted to recover the amount should have filed a suit as the amount is more than Rs.10 lacs, in the Debts Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993) and which will override the provisions of the U.P. Act of 1973.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1993, which defines debt as liability of any person towards a bank/ financial institution. The guarantees are given during the course of business activity. The amount due by a person namely the guarantor and that debts within the meaning of Section 2 (g) is recoverable under the Act of 1993. Section 34 of the Act of 1993 provides that the Act will have an overriding effect. Sub-section (2) of Section 34 saves the mode on recovery under the Act of 1993, mentioned in sub-section. The U.P. Act of 1973 is not saved under Section 34 (2) of the Act of 1993. In Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation, (2003) 2 SCC 455, the Supreme Court held with reference to U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, as follows:-
"Section 34 of the Act consists of two parts. Sub-section (1) deals with the overriding effect of the Act notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than the Act. Sub-section (1) itself makes an exception as regards matters covered by sub-section (2). The UP Act is not mentioned therein. The mode of recovery of debt under the UP Act is not saved under the said provision i.e sub-section (2). ... [T]he High Court went wrong ... by holding that the proceedings under the UP Act were permissible."
10. It is submitted that the Full Bench in Suresh Chandra Gupta v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar, AIR 2005 (All) 320 concluded its opinion in para 23 as follows:-
"23. Our conclusions are as follows:
(a)In case of repugnancy or inconsistency between the Central Act under list-I and the State Act under list-II--the Central Act shall prevail.
(b)The UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 is neither contrary to section 32-G of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 nor is there any repugnancy between the two. It is not void.
(c)The guarantors are covered under the Recovery of Debt Due to Bank and Financial Institution Act, 1993 and recovery proceedings against them can be taken under this Act.
(d)Recovery proceedings can neither be initiated against the principal borrower nor against the guarantor under the UP Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 if the debt is more than 10 lakhs: recovery proceedings can only be initiated under the 1993 Act."
11. Smt. Sudha Pandey appearing for the respondent bank submits that in view of the later judgment of this Court in M/s Mak Plastic (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors., 2009 (1) AWC 579; and Sanjay Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 (8) ADJ 647 (DB), which have followed Full Bench judgment of this Court in Sharda Devi (Smt.) v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2001) 3 UPLBEC 1941, the recovery can proceed under the U.P. Act of 1973, which provides for special mode of recovery of agricultural credit.
12. It is submitted by Smt. Sudha Pandey that in M/s Mak Plastic (P) Ltd. (Supra) this Court has noticed that opinion in Unique Butyle's case (Supra), which has been referred by the Supreme Court to Larger Bench. The State Government can recover any amount due and payable to the Financial Corporation (U.P. Financial Corporation) as land revenue. The recovery under Section (3) of the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 of certain dues as arrears of land revenue is made by the State Government on the basis of agreement for the amount advanced under any State sponsored scheme. The State sponsored scheme does not necessarily mean that the loan advanced or grant is given by the State alone. The State is only approver of the scheme for financial assistance so that it can be easier for a loanee to receive such loans. If a loan is granted on the basis of such scheme by the State Financial Corporation, it is imperative on the State to take steps to recover it irrespective of other methods available under Central law. Therefore, it is difficult to construe that the State will not have any say to initiate proceedings for recovery of loan or it cannot recover the loan as arrears of land revenue. In Unique Butyle's case the Supreme Court held that the banks or financial institutions have option or choice to proceed either under the State Act or under the modes of recovery permissible under the Corporation Act, 1951. In case of M/s Paliwal Glass Works & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5933 of 2005) decided on 21.9.2005, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that the Act of 1993 not only provides expressly for exclusive adjudication by the Tribunal but also the modes of recovery and that Financial Corporation could only recover the monies due to it under the provisions of the Act of 1993, and not under any other provision. The parallel proceedings for recovery were allowed only to the limited extent under Section 34 (2) of the Act of 1993. Section 32G of the Corporation Act, 1951 cannot destroy the exclusivity of the jurisdiction created under the Act of 1993 as regards the mode of recovery. The Corporation Act, 1951 is a self-contained code and Section 32 (G) should not be read as incorporating, by reference the provisions of U.P. Act, 1972. In Unique Butyle (Supra) the Supreme Court held that scope of Section 32 (G) of the Corporation Act, 1951, and its impact on Section 34 (2) of the Act of 1993 was not considered and thus the matter was referred for consideration to Larger Bench.
13. In Sanjay Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of recovery of loan of more than Rs.10 lacs under the U.P. Act of 1972. It was held that recovery certificate for recovery of loan of more than Rs.10 lacs is not permissible to be issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Act of 1972 but since the loan in that case was given under a state sponsored scheme, it did not come within the ambit of definition of debt in Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1993 and therefore its recovery was not barred by Section 18 of the Act of 1993. The Division Bench relied upon the reasoning given in M/s Mak Plastic (P) Ltd. & Ors. v. U.P. Financial Corporation & Ors. (Supra) and Full Bench judgment in Suresh Chandra Gupta v. Collector, Kanpur Nagar and concluded in para 19 as follows:-
"The judgment of the apex Court in Unique Butyle (supra) that for recovery of amount of more than 10 lacs, 1993 Act has to be resorted and 1972 Act is not applicable, is a pronouncement of the apex Court which is binding on all courts. However, in the said judgment, the question was not for consideration as to whether loan granted under the State sponsored scheme are covered by the definition of "debt" within the meaning of section 2(g) whereas in the Full Bench judgment in Sharda Devi's case (supra), the said question was specifically considered and answered. In the Full Bench of Suresh Chandra Gupta and another Vs. Collector, Kanpur Nagar which was also a case where loan was disbursed by the financial corporation and the question whether the loan was under any State sponsored scheme, had not arisen nor considered. Thus, the said judgment also does not help the petitioner in the present case. When the Full Bench judgment of our Court in Sharda Devi (supra) had categorically held that the loan granted under the State sponsored scheme are not covered within the definition of "debt" under section 2(g) of 1993 Act, the recovery under 1972 Act is thus permissible for the Bank and no objection can be taken by the petitioners on the said ground. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the certificate for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue under 1972 Act and the contention of the petitioner on the said ground cannot be accepted."
14. In the present case it is stated in the counter affidavit of Shri Girish Chandra Agrawal, Authorised Officer, Punjab National Bank, Branch Civil Lines, Distt. Aligarh dated 20.3.2012, filed on 29.3.2012 that the petitioner failed to deposit the regular installments of the loan and thus answering respondent bank classified all the loan accounts as non-performing assets on 1.10.2008 and proceeded under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioner deposited Rs.3 lacs on 13.9.2011, Rs.5 lacs on 29.9.2011, Rs.5 lacs on 17.10.2001, Rs.1.5 lacs on 20.10.2011, Rs.30,000/- on 4.11.2011 and another Rs.30,000/- on 5.11.2011. A notice was, thereafter, issued on 23.11.2011 to the company and the Directors calling upon them to pay Rs.3,56,99,470/- as outstanding dues. In the objections filed through their counsel the Directors admitted that the loan facilities are by way of agricultural loan, and alleged that the bank cannot charge interest at the rate of 15.5%. The notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was published in the newspapers. Since Shri Mohan Singh is the Ex-Block Pramukh and has considerable political influence in the area, no one came forward to offer bids, in response to the auction notice and that sale could not be completed even on the reserved price. In the circumstances, the bank proceeded under Section 11A of the U.P. Act of 1973 by issuing recovery certificates against the company as well as Shri Mohan Singh, Smt. Usha Singh, Smt. Alka Singh and Shri Kamal Singh.
15. In paragraph 16 (VI) to (X) of the counter affidavit it is stated as follows:-
"VI) That the Financial Assistance/ Loan was advanced by the respondent bank to the petitioners for construction and running of cold storage in Rural Area for the purpose of storage of agricultural/ horticulture produce (Potatoes) of farmers of the area of District Aligarh. The cold storage is constructed on the Khata No.439 Gata No.3/6 (a) Q 3/6 situated at Vill. Sujanpur, Aligarh, hence there is no agricultural land remains on the spot.
VII) The respondent bank has forwarded the petitioner's project report in respect of running of cold storage in rural area (Village Sujanpur, Tehsil Khair, District Aligarh) for sanction of subsidy of Rs.50 lacs to the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NBARD) under scheme of CISS and in turn the NBARD has sanctioned Rs.50 lacs and transferred the 50% of the subsidy i.e. Rs.25 lacs in favour of M/s Alka Ice and Cold Storage on 19.03.2009, which is evident from the confirmation of deposit letter of respondent bank. Photo copy of the letter dated 19.03.2009 issued by NBARD and Confirmation of Deposit Letter of respondent bank is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA1 to this affidavit.
VIII) The answering bank is also annexing the photocopy of the Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme for Construction/ Expansion/ Modernization of Cold Storage and Storages for Horticulture Produce issued by National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development as Annexure No.CA2 to this affidavit and will produce the latest circular dated 16th July, 2011 in respect of Priority Sector Advances-Classification Report wherein in Section 1 Under column Agriculture Sub-Column Indirect Finance the construction and running of cold storage to store Agriculture Produce/ Products irrespective of their location comes.
IX) That the respondent bank is also annexing the copy of the letter dated 25.03.2012 written by the petitioner's company wherein three postdated cheques of Rs.20 lacs and one postdated cheque for Rs.28 lacs were given to the respondent bank by the petitioners but the same were dishonored due to the insufficient fund in the account of petitioner's in the concern bank. Photo copy of the letter dated 25.03.2010 and 10.09.2010 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.CA3 to this counter affidavit.
X) That it is undisputed between the parties that the financial assistance provided to the petitioner for construction and running of Cold Storage for Agricultural purpose within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 therefore, the respondent bank issued recovery certificate under aforesaid Credit Act and Rules.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondent bank has proceeded under the provisions of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and issued the recovery certificate for recovery of outstanding Dues from the petitioners."
16. The paragraph 20 is also relevant for the purposes of deciding the case and is quoted as follows:-
"20. That the contents of para no.25 and 26 of the writ petition are not admitted in the form as stated. The contents under para in reply are argumentative in nature and suitable arguments may be advanced at the time of hearing of case. However, it is most respectfully submitted that:-
a) Admittedly the financial assistance has been provided to the petitioner for the purpose of construction and running of the Cold Storage in the Rural Area for storage of agricultural produce/ product and horticulture produce (Potatoes) of the farmers. The Agricultural land is converted for use of running the cold storage hence bar is not attracted as provided in Sec.31 (i) of Act, 2002.
b) The U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and U.P. Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975 is the valid piece of legislation.
c) A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case "Sanjay Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others" reported in 2011 Vol.8 ADJ page 647 occasion to consider whether recovery of outstanding dues more than 10 lacs of rupees can be made as arrears of the land revenue under the provisions of U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court after considering the Full Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of "Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and others" reported in 2001 (3) UPLBEC 1941 and considering the another Full Bench decision rendering in case of "Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others" reported in 2005 (3) UPLBEC 2210 and also considering the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries Ltd. Vs. U.P. Financial Co. and others 2003 (2) S.C.C. 455 and case of Eureka Forbs Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank and others and other cases came to the conclusion and held that recovery can be made for rupees more than 10 lacs under U.P. Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 as arrears of the land revenue if the financial assistance is provided under the State Sponsored Scheme by placing reliance on the case of Sharda Devi.
In the present case also recovery certificate and citation has been rightly and validly issued under the provisions of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 for recovery of outstanding dues for Rs.3,56,99,410/- + interest + others charges because the Credit Act, 1973 is a valid piece of legislation and on the same analogy as mentioned in the para 23 of the Sharda Devi case to avoid repugnancy between the Central Act and State Act, both are a valid piece of legislation therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the case when the proceeding fails under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 the respondent bank initiated proceeding under Credit Act, 1973 as there is no bar to proceed under Agricultural Act, 1973 in view of the Section 37 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002."
17. The respondent bank has annexed the letter of the General Manager, National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development (NBARD) dated 19th March, 2009 to the Asstt. General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Vibhav Nagar, Agra advising that with reference to proposals under CISS-Cold Storage- NBARD has credited an amount of Rs.25 lacs to the account of M/s Alka Ice and Cold Storage, Civil Lines, Aligarh with request to arrange minimum credit to the borrower/ unit strictly in accordance with the scheme guidelines. The petitioner had on 5.9.2008 written to the Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Aligarh for arranging inspection by Joint Monitoring Committee so that second and final installment and subsidy can be claimed.
18. The subsidy was given by NBARD to the petitioner for setting up cold storage for plantation and horticulture produce providing for in Annexure-1; capital investment subsidy for construction/ expansion/ modernisation of cold storage and storages for horticulture produce. The subsidy as claimed by the bank was given under the Capital Investment Subsidy Scheme (CISS) on the recommendation of NBARD, which had appraised the proposals and thus the loan is specifically covered under Section 3 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.
19. The U.P. Act of 1973 was enacted to make provisions to facilitate adequate flow of credit for agricultural production and development through banks and other institutional credit agencies and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. In Shyam Singh v. Collector, Distt. Hamirpur, U.P. & ors., 1993 (76) Company Case 523 (SC), the Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Act and found that Sections 10B, 11 and 11A prescribed three procedures for recovery of the loan advanced to an agriculturist. The definition of 'agricultural purpose' in Section 2 (a) (ii) includes the acquisition of implements and machinery in connection with any such activities. Section 10B is applicable, when steps are taken for sale of any movable property or agricultural produce. Section 11 prescribes the procedure for sale of land or any interest therein, or any other immovable property, which has been charged or mortgaged for payment of the amount advanced. Section 11A contains special provisions namely without prejudice to the provisions of Section 10B and 11 under which the bank may forward to the Collector a certificate in the manner prescribed specifying the amount due from agriculturists. The amount due is to be recovered by the Collector as land revenue under Section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was held that where the recovery proceedings are statutory in nature and the creditor is itself the State, or an authority within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution, the right of the bank to follow one or the other modes, separately or simultaneously, for the realisation of the dues has to be recognised.
20. In the present case the loan given by the Punjab National Bank as an element of State funding the application for grant of loan under CISS-Cold Storage-NBARD, with a subsidy of Rs.25 lacs, to be given out of State funds. The financial assistance, thus amount to purely a bank loan given by way of commercial transaction. The definition of bank under Section 2 (c) of the U.P. Act of 1973 includes NBARD. The loan was given for agricultural purpose, which includes under Section 2 (a) (i) marketing of agricultural products, their storage and transport and that financial assistance under Section 2 (e) includes loan, advance, guarantee or otherwise for agriculture purpose. The Act provides for recovery of dues under Chapter IV, which includes Section 10B, Section 11 and Section 11A. The recovery under Section 11 (1) is through by an officer specified by the State Government by notification in the gazette. The State Government has vide notification dated 7.1.1974 specified all Sub Divisional Officers and Addl. Sub Divisional Officers to be the Prescribed Authority within their respective jurisdiction in the district. The bank is required to make an application on which the Prescribed Authority will pass an order directing that any amount due to the bank on account of financial assistance be paid by the sale of the land or any interest therein or other immovable property charged or mortgaged for payment of such amount, provided that no order shall be made unless the agriculturists has been served with a notice by the Prescribed Authority. The provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable and that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is subject to the result of the appeal under Section 12 final and binding on the parties. Section 12 provides for an appeal against the order of Prescribed Authority under Section 11 to the appellate authority as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the gazette. By notification dated 7.1.1974 all the Collectors of the districts have been given the powers of appellate authorities within their respective jurisdiction.
21. Section 11 and 12 provide for a complete procedure for recovery, which provides for notice to the agriculturists, and order to be passed by the prescribed authority and appeal. Section 11 and 12 of the Act are quoted as below:-
"11. Recovery of dues of a bank through a prescribed authority.--
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force an officer specified by the State Government by notification in the Gazette (hereinafter referred to as the prescribed authority) may, on the application of a bank by order, direct that any amount due to the bank on account of financial assistance given to an agriculturist be paid by the sale of the land or any interest therein or other immovable property which is charged or mortgaged for the payment of such amount :
Provided that no order of sale shall be made under this sub-section unless the agriculturist has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amount due.
(1-A) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1), as if such application were a suit in Civil Court for sale of the land or interest therein or other immovable property for enforcing recovery oft he sum referred to in that sub-section.
(2) An order passed by the Prescribed Authority shall, subject to the result of appeal under Section 12, be final and be binding on the parties.
(3) Every order passed by the Prescribed Authority in terms of sub-section (1) or by the Appellate Authority under Section 12 shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such Court by the Civil Court having jurisdiction.
(4) [***]
12. Appeal- (1) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 11 may within a period of thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be specified by the State Government by notification in the Gazette.
(2) The Appellate Authority may, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass such order as it thinks fit."
22. In the instant case the loan given by the Punjab National Bank sponsored by NBARD with subsidy is not a ordinary commercial transaction for which the provisions of the Act of 1993 may be invoked. The U.P. Act of 1973 provides for special mode of recovery, in which the principles of natural justice inbuilt, with the stages of notice, objection, reasons to be given, limitation, finality to the orders of Prescribed Authority and a statutory appeal, before a recovery may be made.
23. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner is in debt of a banking company under Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1993. The transaction, however, is not by way the ordinary course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or financial institution falling within the meaning of debt. A debt may be in the course of any business activity undertaken by the bank or financial institutions, it may also be a debt advanced by the bank under a State sponsored scheme or by the funds provided by the Central Government or the State Government for which a specific method of recovery is provided in the State Act. We are thus of the view that the Act of 1993, will not override the provisions of the U.P. Act of 1973, even if it is not specifically mentioned under sub-section (2) of Section 34. In Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. (Supra) the U.P. Financial Corporation had initiated recovery, which was otherwise permissible as the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 has not been overridden by the Act of 1993 under the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. In that context it was held that the State Financial Corporation Act could not have initiated recovery under the U.P. Act of 1972, which provides for separate modes of recovery and such proceedings were not relatable to proceedings under the State Financial Act.
24. In the present case we are concerned with the recovery under the U.P. Act of 1973, which is a special Act, which not only provides for a specific modes of recovery from movable, immovable and the personal security, it also provides for an order to be passed for recovery after notice and an appeal to the appellate authority, serving the principle of natural justice. The U.P. Act of 1973 thus has all the attributes of the Act of 1993 to protect the interest of the borrower as well as the speedy recovery of the dues of the bank sponsored by the Central Government and State Government under its various schemes for the benefit of agriculturists or for agricultural purposes. The recovery of agricultural debt, even if the outstanding amount is more than Rs.10 lacs, can thus be pursued under the U.P. Act of 1973.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the recovery proceedings drawn by the Punjab National Bank under the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.
25. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dt.29.05.2012 SP/