Judgment U.N.Sinha, J. 1. This application has been filed by six petitioners praying that an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, dated the 26th June, 1968 may he quashed by an appropriate writ, and the Revenue athorities including the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh may be directed to pay to the petitioners the balance amount of loan sanctioned to them. Their further prayer is that the Revenue authorities may be restrained from recovering from the petitioners the amount of money already paid to them by means of proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act or otherwise. It has also been prayed that all proceedings started under the Public Demands Recovery Act may be quashed. It may be mentioned at this stage, that the order of the Board of Revenue, dated the 26th June, 1968 has not been made part of the writ application, on the allegation that the petitioners have not been supplied with copies of orders passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. The relevant facts, mentioned in the writ application, arc as follows: It is stated that after the Government of Bihar had announced that loans would be advanced to the land reclaimers under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (Central Act No. XIX of 1883), the petitioners had filed separate petitions praying for grant of loan of Rs. 5,000/-to each of them. They had also applied for grant of Rs. 5,000.00 as agricultural loan for the purchase of bullocks and agricultural implements. It is stated that the local Revenue authorities had accepted the applications and had recommended the grant. Thereafter the petitioners were directed to undertake conversion of 75 acres of their raiyati land into paddy land and an instalment of Rupees 5,000.00 was sanctioned to the petitioners, by order dated the 5th March, 1959, out of the agreed loan of Rs. 35,000/-. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure 4, and this document is the basis of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is alleged further that collateral security had been furnished by the petitioners pledging 275 acres of land. 35,000/-. A copy of this order has been annexed as Annexure 4, and this document is the basis of the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is alleged further that collateral security had been furnished by the petitioners pledging 275 acres of land. According to the petitioners, the conditions laid down in the order dated the 5th March, 1959, for further payment of instalments of loan had been fulfilled and a completed contract between the petitioners and the State of Bihar had come into existence and the petitioners were entitled to a loan of Rs. 35,000.00 from the Government for the implementation of their reclamation scheme. Reference has been made by the petitioners to an order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra, in the District of Huzaribagh, dated the 7th January, 1961, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 5, to be read with An-nexiire 4, in support of the petitioners claim. The petitioners have alleged, in paragraph 18 of the writ application, about certain piecemeal advances of loan made to them, totalling Rs. 14,200/-This is said to have been advanced out of the sanctioned loan of Rs. 35,000/-. It is alleged that for the balance of the unpaid loan, the Additional Collector of Hazaribagh had informed petitioner No. 1, by a letter dated the 27th July, 1962, that action was being taken to obtain approval of the Board of Revenue for sanction of full amount of loan. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexnre 6. The grievance made by the petitioners is that the balance amount of loan has not yet been paid to them to enable them to complete their reclamation scheme. It is alleged by the petitioners that by letter dated the 16th July, 1965, the Additional Collector of Hazaribagh had asked the petitioners to execute a fresh agreement in Form B, giving full particulars of the loans received by them. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexure 7. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the required direction and had furnished the necessary bond in August, 1965; but in spite of their efforts, the balance of the loan has not been paid. A copy of this letter has been appended as Annexure 7. According to the petitioners, they had complied with the required direction and had furnished the necessary bond in August, 1965; but in spite of their efforts, the balance of the loan has not been paid. It is alleged that instead of giving- further loans to the petitioners, the authorities had instituted certain certificate cases for the recovery of the money already advanced to the petitioners, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraph 33 of the writ application. It appears that the certificate cases are pending for recovery of Rs. 14,600/-, as an amount of Rs. 400.00 had been advanced to the petitioners over and above the loan of Rs. 14,200.00 mentioned above. In effect, the petitioners contend that the proceedings for the recovery of the amounts of advances to them were contrary to the terms and conditions on which the loans were granted and they could not have been instituted before the entire amount of loan had been paid and the work completed. The attempt to recover the partially paid loans has been mentioned as an attempt "to confiscation of property" and the non-payment of the balance has been described as offending against the principles of natural justice. 3. On behalf of the State of Bihar a counter-affidavit and a supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed and the substance of their contents may be stated now. It is alleged that the seven loan petitions made by the petitioners had been combined and the loan was to be advanced after complying with the requirements made in Annexure 4 of the writ application, dated the 5th March, 1959 (a copy of the same order has been appended as Annexure A of the counter-affidavit), but that at no stage the requirements were complied with. It is alleged that the proper agreement had never been filed in spite of repeated requests and the contention of the petitioners, that, a loan of Rs. 35,000.00 had been sanctioned is controverted as wrong. Various details of facts have been mentioned in the two-counter-affidavits, giving the circumstances under which the certificate cases had been instituted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly relied upon Annexurcs 4 and 5, contending that a loan of Rs. 35,000.00 had been sanctioned is controverted as wrong. Various details of facts have been mentioned in the two-counter-affidavits, giving the circumstances under which the certificate cases had been instituted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly relied upon Annexurcs 4 and 5, contending that a loan of Rs. 35,000.00 had been sanctioned to the petitioners and that the State of Bihar should now be directed to pay them the balance due. Special reference has been made by the learned counsel to the following sentence occurring in Annexure 5:- - "The loans of Rs. 5,000.00 each have been sanctioned already to the applicant." According to the learned counsel, this sentence indicates that a sum of Rs. 35,000/-, including a sum of Rs. 5,000.00 as agricultural loan had been sanctioned by the authorities and the balance cannot now be withheld nor can the certificate proceedings be allowed to continue, before the total amount sanctioned has been paid to the petitioners. The contention of the learned Counsel must fail on facts as well as on the requirements of the Rules made under the Land Improvements Loans Act. Neither Annexure 4 nor Annexure 5 supports the argument that a loan of Rs. 35,000 had been finally sanctioned. The petitioners themselves have ap-pended Annexure 9A, dated the 28th September 1967, which was an application made by the first two petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, in reply to the latters memorandum dated the 12th September, 1967. (A copy of this memorandum has been annexed as Annexure J to the Supplementary counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar). In Annexure 9A the petitioners referred to their Annexure 6, dated the 27th July, 1962, which had dealt with the question of a sanction to be given by the Board of Revenue. In this annexure the petitioners had proceeded on the footing that sanction of the Board of Revenue was essential for a loan of Rs. 35,000, and that view is commensurate with Rule 1-A of the Rules framed under the Land Improvement Loans Act. Under this Rule, any loan beyond Rs. 10,000.00 requires the previous sanction of the Board of Revenue. Thus all the parties were proceeding on the footing that sanction for the loan by the Board of Revenue was a prerequisite and the materials on record clearly indicate that no such sanction was ever given by the Board of Revenue. Under this Rule, any loan beyond Rs. 10,000.00 requires the previous sanction of the Board of Revenue. Thus all the parties were proceeding on the footing that sanction for the loan by the Board of Revenue was a prerequisite and the materials on record clearly indicate that no such sanction was ever given by the Board of Revenue. Even in 1968, by Annexure 9B, an application made by the first two petitioners to the Board of Revenue Bihar, a request was made for the sanction by the Board for the loan. The actual words used were as follows:- - "Lastly we appeal to our Honourable Member that the following reliefs may kindly be given to us immediately:- - (a) In the interest and also in order to safeguard and ensure easy recovery of the Government money one loan of Rs. 35,000/-subject to the adjustment or redumption (sic) of Rs. 14,6000.00 with free interest be sanctioned by the Board according to the recommendation of the then D. C. Mr. V. P. Kashyap and the Commissioner of Chota-nagpur Division Ranchi, in their letter No. respectively the loan of Rs. 35,000.00 was also considered reasonable by your predecessor Mr. C. K. Raman. (b) Since the Board is sanctioning authority of the loan under the rules the annual instalment of loans may be kindly fixed by the Board as according to Rules 17 and 18 of the Bihar Loans Manual and one agreement bond be ordered to be executed for Rs. 35,000/-in order to set right all complications after cancelling the previous so many irregular bonds executed for the piecemeal advances of Rs. 14,600/-." This clearly indicates that the Board of Revenue had never sanctioned a loan of Rs. 35,000/-, nor did the petitioners ever execute the proper agreement for the advances of Rs. 14,600.00 made to them on various occasions. 5 During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Land Improvement Loans Act and Rules 9, 11, 16 and 18 of the Rules framed thereunder and has contended that for the loans already given to the petitioners the requirements of these provisions of law had not been fulfilled and, therefore, recovery by certificate proceedings is not permissible. Referring to Section 7 of the Act specifically learned counsel has contended that only loans granted under this Act can be recovered by certificate proceedings, and as the Rules had not been complied with for the loans actually made, the loans already advanced cannot be recovered by proceedings under Public Demands Recovery Act. There are two obstacles in the way of accepting this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. The first is that the main prayer made in the writ application seems to be that the petitioners are entitled to the balance of the loan already sanctioned, although in the prayer portion a prayer has been made for restraining the Revenue Authorities from recovering the amount already paid. In the allegations made in the writ application emphasis has been laid on the fact that a loan of Rs. 35,000.00 had been sanctioned, of which a portion had been paid. The objection to the recovery of the loan actually made was on the ground that the loan advanced cannot be recovered before the entire amount of loan had been paid and the work of the petitioners completed. Secondly, if the loan already granted to the petitioners cannot be considered to be a loan granted under the Land Improvement Loans Act, then various controversial facts have to be investigated to find out the circumstances Tinder which the petitioners took Rs. 14,600 from the State of Bihar and such facts cannot be investigated in a writ application of this kind. Moreover, if the matter is not covered by the Land Improvement Loans Act, then the contractual obligations between the parlies cannot be investigated for relief by a writ or an order envisaged by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. After a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the contentions raised by the parties, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for the reliefs which the petitioners have claimed. The application must, therefore, fail and it is dismissed. It is clear that the petitioners have mistakenly come up to this Court in this proceeding for relief and, therefore, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of this Court. The order of stay passed on the 31st October, 1968 is vacated. Kanhaiyaji, J. 7 I agree.