JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner is a private limited company having its factory at Leather Complex Unnao where it manufactures special leather from hides for the purpose of export. The petitioner obtained various type of facilities from the U.P. Suite Leather Development and Marketing Corporation, which is a Corporation owned and controlled by the State Government. 2. In the year 1982 , the petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into an agreement by virtue of which the petitioner was permitted to use all the machines at the common facility centre at Unnao for a period of one year starting from 1st December, 1982. A formal agreement was executed on a stamp paper. The petitioner was allowed to use the shed on payment of Rs. 32,500/ - per month, half of which had been paid in advance. The petitioner also used the machines from the common facility centre against the payment as stipulated in Annexure 1. 3. Up to September 5, 1983, the petitioner admitted to have availed the facility aforesaid. But this period, due to strike in die Corporation, the petitioner could not avail the facility for some days. Consequently, it applied to respondent No. 1 for adjustment of the charges from the bills which had been submitted to it by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 denied the right of the petitioner to get reduction claimed. Ultimately, on 5 September, 1983, the petitioner cancelled the contract entered into between him and respondent No.1. 4. Uttar Pradesh State Leather Development and Marketing Corporation, thereafter, issued a certificate of recovery of die dues under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 for Rs. 75,384.83 claiming that this was the amount due on 28.12.1984. 5. Contending that the money due from the petitioner towards the use of common facility and use of shed could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue, the present writ petition was filed. It has been contended that in accordance with the agreement, the accounting had to be done by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and without accounting and without accepting the claim made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue. It has been contended that in accordance with the agreement, the accounting had to be done by respondent No. 1 and the petitioner and without accounting and without accepting the claim made by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue. Clause 6 of the agreement relied upon by the petitioner is quoted below ; "UPLDMC will maintain adequate inventories of spares to ensure that every machine is kept in full working condition every day failing which the production time loss will be compensated by either in day shift or during the rostering period. UPLDMC will maintain a list of indigeneous spares along with the lowest quotation and shall reimburse to Sterling at the lowest rate obtained by them in case of emergency repairs Sterling might have to undertake." 6. In paragraph 6 of the counter - affidavit, it has been alleged that the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 LAMCO through its Managing Director to help them by providing cash advances as their financial position was not good and in consideration of profit they would supply fancy leather to the Corporation as per its requirements. The petitioner was provided the shift inchange machineries and other facilities during the course of their work as per agreement. The petitioner as per the agreement was liable to make all payments within first ten days of every month, but it did not make the payment as per the same. The Corporation denied that advance payment was ever made to it. The Corporation has contended that the amount claimed by the letter dated 14.7.83 was correct and that whenever the machines could not work on account of sudden break - down and due to compelling circumstances, the petitioner was compensated for lost time and it was incorrect that respondent No. 1, Corporation, was making a demand of higher amount than what was due from the petitioner. 7. 7. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has denied the allegations made in the counter affidavit and reiterated those in the writ petition, Sri P.N. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that: (i) the claim for rent for the job work done at the common facility centre, did not come within the purview of Section 3 (1) of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and as such the recovery proceedings were without jurisdiction; and (ii) there was a bonafide dispute which requires adjudication and, therefore, the claim could be made only under the ordinary law by filing a suit against the petitioner. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner has any substance. The expression "financial assistance" has been defined in Section 2(b) of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 which includes any assistance rendered for establishing, expanding, moderning, renovating or running any industrial undertaking. The facilities which were given to the petitioner were covered by Section 3 (1) (a) and, as such, the recovery of the amount could be made as arrears of land revenue. This has been so held by this Court in the decision, the reference of which is being given below : "Civil Misc. Writ No. 6205 of 1987, R.K. and Sons Bhadohi: v. The Collector, Varanasi, decided on 12.3.1987." 9. The next argument of the petitioner was that without the settlement of accounts, no recovery could be issued. The submission made is not tenable. The right ITPT RF.r - 140 of the Corporation to realise the money due to it as land revenue is not dependent upon the prior settlement of the claim by any Civil Court. In case the petitioner thought that it was entitled to certain deductions, it could go to the Civil Court by having made the deposit first. The right ITPT RF.r - 140 of the Corporation to realise the money due to it as land revenue is not dependent upon the prior settlement of the claim by any Civil Court. In case the petitioner thought that it was entitled to certain deductions, it could go to the Civil Court by having made the deposit first. The proviso to Sub - section (4) of Section 3 of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, which runs as under, makes a provision to that effect: "Provided that whenever proceedings are taken against any person for the recovery of any such sum, he may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may make a reference under or otherwise enforce an arbitration agreement in respect to the amount so paid " 10. For what we have said above, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and reject the same.