JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.8.1999 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 153 of 1999 by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The said order arises out of the suit being Original Suit No. 304 of 1998 pending before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division. Muzaffarnagar. In the said suit, the petitioner had sought for an injunction in respect of the proceedings for recovery of the dues of the Bank sought to be made under Section 11A of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.
2. Mr. N. C. Rajvanshi. learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since certain properties were mortgaged as security in respect of the loan, the same cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue in view of the Apex Court's decision. Secondly, he contends that recovery certificate was issued without giving opportunity to the petitioner which is again vitiated as has been held by the Apex Court. On these grounds, he contends that the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner is void ob-initio as such the civil suit is maintainable.
3. Shri Tarun Verma, learned counsel for respondents on the other hand contends that the question of mortgage would not be relevant for the purpose of this case in view of the provisions contained in Section 11A of the 1973 Act which does not prescribe any procedure for giving of opportunity to the creditor.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
5. It seems that the loan is sought to be recovered under Section 11A of the 1973 Act which Is a special procedure in a special statute in respect of local matters over-riding the general statutes. Therefore, decision cited by Shri Rajvanshi cannot be attracted in the present case. The question of mortgage is also involved in the said Act which is subject-matter of recovery as arrears of land revenue in the manner as provided in Chapter X, Sections 275 to 294 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by reason of Section 11A of the 1973 Act. Section 330 (c) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act bars the Jurisdiction of civil court in respect of assessment or collection of revenue. Therefore, the suit is hit by the mischief of Section 330 (c) of the 1950 Act. As such it is not maintainable.
6. At this stage, Mr. Rajvanshi submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay dues of the Bank provided compound interest is not charged and if the interest is charged on the basis of the ratio decided in the case of Corporation Bank v. D. S. Gowda and another. 1995 All CJ 746, by the Apex Court, in that event he will instruct his client to withdraw the suit and pay the dues in suitable instalment. Mr. Verma contends that he requires instruction from the Bank.
7. Be that as it may, it seems that the Bank is interested in recovering the loan amount. The procedure for recovery definitely takes a long time after objections are being taken from time to time which is a common experience. In that view oi the matter. I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this petition. However, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 within a period of two months from date, i.e., within 31st October, 1999, with the Bank. There will be an ad interim order staying the further proceedings of the recovery for a period of two months from today. In case the sum of Rs. 50.000 is deposited within a period of two months, in that event, the interim order shall stand extended for a further period of three months within which the petitioner shall deposit the second instalment. The petitioner shall pay the balance amount after the initial deposit in five equal quarterly instalments. All such payments are to be made in every successive quarter to the Bank. On deposit of each instalment, the interim order shall stand extended by one quarter successively till the entire amount is liquidated. In default of any one of the instalment or the initial deposit, the stay order shall stand automatically discharged and the respondents shall be entitled to proceed with the recovery in accordance with law. It will be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Bank to calculate the Interest on the basis of the ratio decided in the case of Corporation Bank (supra). Such representation shall be made by the petitioner within a period of one month along with copy of this order. The respondent Bank shall decide such representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation having regard to the ratio decided in the case of Corporation Bank (supra) and pass appropriate order and furnish fresh statement of account to the petitioner. Mr. Rajvanshi also contends that the recovery charges cannot be charged from the petitioner in view of decision In the case of Mirza Javed Murtaza v. U. P. Financial Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 1983 All 234, which may also be taken into account by the Bank while deciding the question of recovery charges. It will also be open to the petitioner to withdraw the suit.
8. The writ petition is thus disposed of.
However, there will be no order as to cost.