JUDGMENT B.P.J. Reddy CJ. - The Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973, 'to make provisions to facilitate adequate flow of credit for agricultural production and development through banks and other institutional credit agencies and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. "It was brought into force with effect from 1.1.1974. Section 2 of the Act defines certain expressions. Section 3 empowers the State Government to vest, subject to such restrictions as may be specified in the notification. All bhumidhars, asamis and Government lessees, with rights of alienation in land (held under their tenure of any interest held by them in such land) including the right to create a charge or mortgage on such land or interest in favour of banks for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance. Section 6 provides that an agriculturist desirous of securing financial assistance from any bank by creating a charge on land or any immovable property may make a declaration on a duly stamped paper in the form set out in the schedule to the Act. Chapter IV of the Act provides for recovery of dues by banks, Section 11, in particular, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an officer specified by the State Government may on an application by the bank, by order any amount due to the bank on account of financial assistance given to agriculturists be recovered by sale of the land or any interest therein or other immovable property which is charged or mortgaged towards the loan amount. It is not necessary for us to go into other provisions in as much as we are concerned in this writ petition only with the validity of Section 11. For the sake of convenience, Section 11 may be set out in its entirety. It reads : "11. Recovery of dues of a Bank through a prescribed authority.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an officer specified by the State Government by notification in the Gazette (hereinafter referred to as the prescribed authority) may, on the application of a bank by order, direct that any amount due to the bank on account of financial assistance given to an agriculturist be paid by the sale of the land or any interest therein or other immovable property which is charged or mortgaged for the payment of such amount. Provided that no order of sale shall be made under this sub- section unless the agriculturist has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amount due. (1A) The provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply in relation to an application under sub-section (1), as if such application were a suit in civil court for sale of the land or interest therein or other immovable property for enforcing recovery of the sum referred to in that sub-section. (2) An order passed by the prescribed authority shall, subject to the result of appeal under Section 12, be final and be binding on the parties. (3) Every order passed by the prescribed authority in terms of sub-section (1) or by the appellate authority under Section 12 shall be deemed to be a decree of civil Court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court having jurisdiction. (4) No suit for the recovery of any sum due to a bank on account of financial assistance given to an agriculturist shall lie in the civil court." 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H. M. Srivastava raised a legal contention at the hearing of the writ petition, though not taken in the writ petition. He submitted, on the basis of a decision of the Madras High Court in G.N. Venakataswamy v. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 1981 Madras 308, that Section 11 is ultra wires the State Legislature and hence no recovery can be made in accordance with Section 11. Before we proceed to deal with this contention, it would be appropriate to briefly state the facts of the writ petition. 3. The petitioner is an agriculturist. He took a loan from the first respondent, State Bank of India, Mainpuri, in the sum of Rs. 65,000/-. in the years 1981, for purchasing a tractor. The loan was repayable in certain specified instalments within a period of seven years. The petitioner says that he paid certain amounts. But, admittedly, he did not pay the instalments as stipulated, whereupon the bank sent a recovery certificate to the second respondent, Tahsildar, Bhongaon, District Mainpuri, to recover an amount of Rs. 1,18,611.80 p. plus interest and collection charges. On the basis of the said certificate, the Tahsildar proceeded to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. But, admittedly, he did not pay the instalments as stipulated, whereupon the bank sent a recovery certificate to the second respondent, Tahsildar, Bhongaon, District Mainpuri, to recover an amount of Rs. 1,18,611.80 p. plus interest and collection charges. On the basis of the said certificate, the Tahsildar proceeded to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. It is against these recovery proceedings that the present writ petition was filed. The recovery proceedings were stayed by this court by an order dated 17.3.1988 on the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 25,000/-within two weeks from the date of the order. 4. The contention of the learned counsel is that a law relating to 'banking' can be made only by the parliament in as much as banking is one of the subjects in the Union List (List I) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The State Legislature has no power to make a law relating to banking. Section 11 of the U. P. Act is a law relating to banking in as much as it provides for the deals with recovery and mode of recovery of the debts due to banks. Strong reliance is placed upon the Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in G. N. Vankataswamy (supra) where in Section 52-A of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act was declared as ultra wires the powers of the State Legislature. 5. For a proper appreciation of this contention, it is necessary to notice a few Entries in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 6. Entry 45 of List I (Union List) reads. "45. Banking" Entry 14 of List II (State List) reads : 14. Agriculture, including agricultural education and research, protection against pests and prevention of plant diseases. "Entry 18 of List II reads, 18. Land that is to say, rights in or over land, land tenures including the relation of land lord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans: colonization.' Entry 30 in List II relates to relief of agricultural indebtedness. It reads, 30. Money lending and money-lenders; relief of indebtedness.' Entry 45 of List II pertains to land revenue. It reads, 45. Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation revenues. 7. It reads, 30. Money lending and money-lenders; relief of indebtedness.' Entry 45 of List II pertains to land revenue. It reads, 45. Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of revenue, the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation revenues. 7. Entry 20 of List II (Concurrent List) reads, 20. Economic and Social planning." Entry 33 of List III, which was substituted by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954, reads : "33.Trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of, (a) the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest, and imported goods of the same kind as such products : (b) food stuffs, including edible oil seeds and oil; (c) Cattle fodder, including oil cakes and other concentrates; (d) raw cotton, whether ginned or unginned, and cotton seed, and (e) raw jute." 8. It is well-settled that while examining to which Entry does an enactment relate, it is necessary to examine the pith and substance of the enactment. We have to ascertain what is the central theme of the enactment. It may happen that an enactment made by the State legislature and which applying the doctrine of pith and substance is found relatable to an Entry in List II, may incidentally trench upon the field reserved for parliament by List I, but on that account, the said enactment cannot be declared as incompetent. While it is unnecessary to refer to the several decisions on the subject, it would be enough if we refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1980 SC 1955 . It says : "12. When validity of a legislation is challenged on the ground of want of legislative competence and it becomes necessary to ascertain to which entry in the three lists the legislation is referable to, the Court has evolved the theory of pith and substance. If the pith and substance of a legislation falls within one entry or the other but some portion of the subject- matter of the legislation incidentally trenches upon and might enter a field under another List, the Act as a whole would be valid notwithstanding such incidental trenching. If the pith and substance of a legislation falls within one entry or the other but some portion of the subject- matter of the legislation incidentally trenches upon and might enter a field under another List, the Act as a whole would be valid notwithstanding such incidental trenching. This is well established by a catena of decisions see Union of India v. H.S. Dhillon, (1972) 2 SCR 33 : AIR 1972 SC 1061 and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd., (1976) 1 SCR 552 : AIR 1976 SC 1031 . After referring to these decisions in State of Karnataka v. Ranganath Reddy, (1978) 1 SCR 641 : AIR 1978 SC 215 , Untwalia J. speaking for the Constitution Bench has in terms stated that the pith and substance of the Act has to be looked into and an incidental trespass would not invalidate the law. The challenge in that case was to the nationalisation of contract carriages by the Karnataka State. inter alia. on the ground that the statute was invalid as it was a legislation on the subject of inter-State trade and commerce. Repelling this contention that Court unanimously held that in pith and substance the impugned legislation was for acquisition of contract carriages and not an Act which deals with inter-State trade and commerce." 9. Bearing the said principle in mind, ,let us examine whether the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act is outside the competence of the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh. We have already referred to the purpose for which the said enactment was made. The main purpose was to enable the agriculturists to create a change upon their lands or to mortgage them in favour of banks for raising loans for developing their agriculture. For this purpose, a right was created in the several tenure-holders to charge or mortgage their lands in favour of banks: a simple and convenient procedure was also evolved for the said purpose. The main idea was to save the agriculturists from the clutches of unscrupulous money-lenders who have been grabbing their lands under the guise of recovery of loans and to provide for the steady flow of agricultural credit through banks. Interest charged by banks is far lower than interest charged by money- lenders and there is always an openness in all dealings with banks. Interest charged by banks is far lower than interest charged by money- lenders and there is always an openness in all dealings with banks. As part of the scheme the Act also provides for recovery of loans given by banks to agriculturists for agricultural purposes. Section 2 defines the expressions 'agriculture' 'agricultural purpose' and agriculturist'. The Act also provides for financing of agricultural co-operative credit societies by banks with the same object can it be said that this is a law relating to 'Banking'? We think, not. The central theme of the enactment is not to regulate banking or to make a law relating to banks. It is a law relating to agriculture as also to land and relief of agriculture indebtedness. It is thus relatable to Entries 14, 18 and 30 of List II. It may also be relatable, perhaps, to Entry 20 in List III (Concurrent List) as a measure of economic and social planning. But by no stretch of imagination can it be treated as a law relating to Banking. 'No doubt, the Act provides for recovery of loans advanced by Banks. But it does not deal with recovery of all loans given by banks. It only provides for recovery of agricultural loans advanced by banks to agriculturists. To reiterate, the main object underlying the enactment is to provide for agricultural credit through banks and also to provide for its recovery. To induce the banks to provide credit to agriculturists for agricultural purposes, it was also necessary to provide an easy and convenient method for their recovery. If the banks were asked to advance credit and in case it was not repaid, they were to file suit in civil court, which drag on for years and years, the banks would not have come forward or agreed to advance credit to agriculturists. Section 11 is thus an integral part of the scheme contained in the enactment. It is perfectly within the competence of the State Legislature, since it is clearly relatable to Entries in the State List and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be relatable to Entry 45 of List I 'Banking'. 10. We shall now examine the decision of the Madras High Court, upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. We shall now examine the decision of the Madras High Court, upon which strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Section 52-A of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act provided for recovery of loans and advances to any person (i) by Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., Madras, or (ii) by such other Corporations (the shares of which have been contributed, under written or guaranteed by the State Government) as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, as arrears of land revenue. It would be appropriate to set out the said provision. It reads. "52-A. Recovery of sums due to the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation and other Corporations etc.-Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken all loans granted and all advances made to any person : (i) by the Tamil Nadu Agro Industries Corporation Limited, Madras; or (ii)by such other Corporations (the shares of which have been contributed, under written or guaranteed by the State Government) as may be notified in this behalf by the State Government in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette: or (iii) form out of the Amalgamated Tamil Nadu shares of the Post War Services Reconstruction Fund and the Special Fund for Reconstruction and Rehabilitation of Ex-servicemen, together with interest on such loans and advances, and all R sums due to the Corporations mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of this Act." It appears that the Government of Tamil Nadu had from time to time issued notifications, notifying the Corporations such as the State Industries promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd., the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd.. The Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. and so on as corporations within the meaning of Section 52-A (ii). The petitioner before the Madras High Court had taken a loan from Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Which he failed to repay, where upon proceedings were taken under Section 52-A for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the validity of the said provisions on the ground that it is outside the competence of the Madras Legislature to enact. The petitioner approached the Madras High Court by way of a writ petition questioning the validity of the said provisions on the ground that it is outside the competence of the Madras Legislature to enact. The petitioner's contention was that Section 52A is not relatable to any of the Entries in List II or List III and, therefore, outside the rovince of the State Legislature. According to the petitioner, the said provision was relatable to Entry 45 in List I. The respondent Corporation, however, sought to relate the said provision to Entries 3, 43 and 45 of List 11 of the Seventh Schedule. Entries 3. 43 and 45 of List II read as follows : "3. Officers and servants of the High Court,procedure in rent and -- revenue courts. Fees taken in all courts except the Supreme Court." "43. Public debt of the State." "45. Land revenue, including the assessment and collection of t'! revenue the maintenance of land records, survey for revenue purposes and records of rights, and alienation of revenues." The Division Bench examined the three Entries and held that the impugned provision cannot be related to any them. The Bench confined its attention to Section 52-A and held that it cannot be related to any of the three entries in the List II relied upon for the Corporation. The conclusion of the Bench is to be found in paragraph 46 of its judgment. It runs as follows : "46........the conclusion if inescapable that Entry 45 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India only deals with land revenue payable to the State and it has nothing whatever to do with any amount payable by any person to anybody else. Therefore prima facie the State Legislature, under the said Entry, will have no power to enact a law for the purpose of collecting the dues owned by a person to a Corporation like the Corporations with which we :re concerned and from this point of view, Section 52-A of the Act, as introduced by the Tamil Nadu Act 12 of 1972. will be outside the legislative competence of the State." It is indeed not necessary for us to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the said decision for the reason that the Madras High Court was not dealing with either agricultural credit or with relief or agricultural indebtedness, where as the Uttar Pradesh Act in question deals exclusively with flow of agricultural credit through banks and recovery of loans advanced by banks for agricultural purposes. It does not also appear that the attention of the Madras High Court was invited to Entry 20 in the Concurrent List, which relates to economic and social planning. Section 52-A of the Tamil Nadu Act was sought to be justified as a law relating to Entries 3. 43 and 45 of the State List and particularly with reference to Entry 45, which deals with land revenue, including assessment and collection of land revenue." The Court held that it cannot be so related. It is evident that the U.P. Act is by its very character, theme and purpose, wholly distinguishable and different from the provision of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act considered by the Madras High Court. The said decision has, therefore, no application to the U.P. Act or Section 11 thereof. 11. For the above reasons, we reject the contention that Section 11 of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 is ultra wires the Legislature of Uttar Pradesh. 12. No other point was urged except a plea for facility of payment. The bank too has no objection to fixation of appropriate instalments. Accordingly, we direct that the entire amount due and payable as on 1.6.1991 shall be paid in four equal quarterly instalments commencing with 1.6.1991. The first instalment shall be payable on or before 1.6.1991 and the remaining three on 1.9.1992, 1.12.1991 and 1.3. 1991 respectively. If any one of these instalments is not paid as specified here in, the entire amount shall become payable at once and can be recovered in accordance with law. 13. It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Bank for furnishing him with a statement of account as on 1.6.1991. He may approach the Bank for this purpose within three weeks from today and if he does so, the Bank shall furnish a statement to him within two weeks therefrom. 14. 13. It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Bank for furnishing him with a statement of account as on 1.6.1991. He may approach the Bank for this purpose within three weeks from today and if he does so, the Bank shall furnish a statement to him within two weeks therefrom. 14. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed subject to fixation of the instalments in the foregoing paragraph by us. There shall be no order as to costs.