(1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner had ob tained a loan of Rs. 1,10,030 for agricul tural purposes for purchasing a tractor. On account of default in repayment of the loan amount, a recovery certificate was issued on 15th February, 1997 for a sum of Rs. 1,82,147.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had obtained the loan on 16-11-1991. According to him, the recovery is barred by reason of Section 11-A (2) of the U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 1973 Act) since the recovery certificate was sought to be referred after three years when the amount specified in the certifi cate fell due. He also contends that since the loan is covered by the 1973 Act, there fore, it is incompetent on the part of the Collector to initiate proceedings for recovering the said amount under the provisions of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act for the purpose of recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. Inasmuch as, according to him, in view of the provisions of 1973 Act such recovery could be initiated only ac cording to the procedure laid down in the said Act and not otherwise. He contends that alternatively even if it can be recovered under the provisions of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder, in that event, the present proceedings cannot be maintained on the ground that the initiation of the proceed ings having been made in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 11-Aofthe 1973 Act, and as such the proceedings is liable to be quashed. He further contends that in view of the limitation having been set in the meantime, the amount has become ir recoverable. He also contends that the recovery has been stayed in the meantime by an order, dated 4-3-1997 which stood extended from time to time but had now in the meantime stood expired.
(3.) THEN again, the petitioner himself by his own conduct gave an impression to the Bank that he is admitting his liability and promising to repay the amount and he himself had prayed for time and created an impression that he will be repaying the amount. By virtue of his own conduct, he has kept the bank expecting that the amount would be repaid and thereby it stood in the way of sending a recovery certificate to the Collector. Thus, the petitioner's own actions had compelled the Bank to remain inactive. Therefore, the petitioner does not appear to have come with clean hands. He is estopped from taking advantage of his own conduct, by which he had prevented the bank from invoking sub-section (2) of Section 11-Aof the 1973 Act. Therefore, it is not open to him to contend otherwise.