JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This petition is directed against the disposal of the petitioners' objection by the Kanpur Development Authority rejecting the claim of the petitioners that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioners could not be realised under S. 40 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. 2. The relevant facts necessary for the decision of this petition lie within a narrow compass, and incidentaly those facts are not in dispute. The petitioners took a loan from Kanpur Development Board in 1955 for construction of a house. The loan was secured by a Deed of Mortgage executed by the petitioners with respect to a piece of land over which the house was to be constructed. Cl. 10 of the Mortgage Deed provides that in default of payment of the loan it will be open to the mortgagee to realise the amount due by sale of the mortgaged property. By Act No. II of 1959 Kanpur Development Board was replaced by Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. The Act came into force on 2nd February, 1960. Under this Act all the liabilities and assets of Kanpur Development Board came to be vested in Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. In 1973 Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act came into force making provision for creation of various Development Authorities throughout the State. In due course Kanpur Development Authority was established under this Act. 3. Relying on S. 40 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, Kanpur Development Authority proceeded to recover the loan of the petitioners. The petitioners filed an objection asserting that S. 40 of the Act has no application to the present case and that Kanpur Development Authority could not, therefore, proceed to recover the loan under that provision. The objection was negatived by the Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur by an order dated 18-4-1978 which is under challenge in this petition. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the loan advanced to the petitioners did not fall within the purview of S. 40 of the Act inasmuch as it was neither fees or charges nor an amount due on account of disposal of land, building or other properties. In the alternative, it is urged that in any case sub-sec. In the alternative, it is urged that in any case sub-sec. (2) of S. 4 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, clearly enjoins that where a public loan is secured by mortgage or charge or other encumbrance on immovable property such property shall be proceeded against first before the Collector proceeds to recover the dues in any other manner prescribed by law. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties we are clearly of the opinion that both these contentions are correct. S. 40 as stood at the relevant time reads as follows : "40. Mode of recovery of moneys due to Authority-Any money certified by the Authority as due to it on account of fees or charges, or from the disposal of lands, buildings or other properties, moveable or immovable, or by way of rents and profits may, if the recovery thereof is not expressly provided for in any other provision of this Act, be recovered by the Authority as arrears of land revenue, and no suit shall lie in the Civil Court for recovery of such money." It is apparent that this provision could be invoked by the Kanpur Development Authority only if the money sought to be recovered was due to it on account of fees or charges or from the disposal of land, building or other properties or by way of rents and profits. It is indisputable that the amount sought to be recovered by the Kanpur Development Authority is neither fees nor charges nor can it be described as an amount due to the Development Board on account of disposal of lands, buildings etc. Such amount would have been claimable only if the-lands, buildings or other properties were owned by the Development Authority or its predecessor. The loan advanced to the petitioners for enabling them to construct a house could obviously not fall in any of the clauses contemplated under S. 40 of the Act. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kanpur, was hence clearly wrong in taking the view that the amount could be recovered from the Development Authority under S. 40 of the Act. 6. That takes us to the second point. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Kanpur, was hence clearly wrong in taking the view that the amount could be recovered from the Development Authority under S. 40 of the Act. 6. That takes us to the second point. S. 4(2)(b) of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 provides : "In every case of a mortgage, charge or other encumbrances on immovable property, such property or as the case may be, the interest of the defaulter therein, shall first be sold in proceedings for recovery of the sum due from that person as if it were an arrear of land revenue, and any other proceeding may be taken thereafter only if the Collector certifies that there is no prospect of realisation of the entire sum due through the first mentioned process within a reasonable time.". The scheme of the Act is clear and unambiguous. It provides that where dues sought to be recovered are secured by a mortgage, charge or other encumbrance on immovable property the authority should first proceed to recover the dues from mortgaged property before resorting to any other mode of recovery. We are fortified on this point by a decision of this Court in the case of Udai Pratap v. U.P. State Financial Corporation., Varanasi reported in, 1978 Allahabad Civil Nirnaya 6 : 1978 All LJ NOC 10. Interpreting this provision the Bench ruled : "The import of this section clearly is that normally proceedings for recovery of loan advanced by the U.P. State Financial Corporation by attachment or sale of properties other than those which have been pledged or mortgaged for raising the loan, cannot be taken without first making an attempt to recover the same by attachment and sale of the mortgaged or pledged properties". 7. Respondents were, therefore, wholly unjustified in proceeding to recover the loan from the petitioners straightway without having taken recourse to the remedy available to them under the Mortgage Deed by the sale of the mortgaged property. The respondents can adopt other modes of recovery only after exhausting the remedy available to them by sale of the mortgaged property. 8. In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th April, 1978 (Annexure Al) is quashed. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to. The respondents can adopt other modes of recovery only after exhausting the remedy available to them by sale of the mortgaged property. 8. In the result, petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th April, 1978 (Annexure Al) is quashed. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to. recover the dues from the mortgaged property and if the entire amount of loan cannot be recovered from the sale of the mortgaged property, it would be open to the respondents to recover the balance due from the petitioners by following other modes of recovery as prescribed by law. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that it should be open to the petitioners to pay the dues to the Development Authority so that the latter does not take any coercive steps for recovery of the amount. We see no objection to the petitioner's being allowed to adopt such course. No order as to costs.