G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER had entered into an agreement with the state government to execute the work of earth excavation of left bank canal of harangi reservoir project from chainage 79. 300 to 79. 500 kilometres. The work was to be completed by 14-5-1977. But the petitioner failed to carry out the said term. By a letter dated 14-12-1977 (annexure-r4) petitioner requested the concerned assistant engineer to extend the period for three months by setting out an undertaking that he will complete the work in the last week of march, 1978. But he again failed to maintain his promise. Since the petitioner failed to resume the work, by a letter dated 27-3-1978 (annexure-r5) the assistant executive engineer directed the petitioner to resume the same before 5th april, 1978. Because of the failure on the part of the petitioner to resume and complete the work even within the extended time, he was served with a notice dated 29-4-1978 calling upon him to show cause as to why his contract need not be cancelled. Despite service of notice the work was not resumed. Petitioner was again served with another notice dated 28-7-1978 requiring him to show cause as to why after cancellation of contract the balance of work need not be entrusted to another agency for completion thereof and the additional cost be realised from him as per clause 3 (c) of the agreement. It was also indicated in the said notice that if the petitioner fails to file any reply it would be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter. Thereafter, under the communication dated 26-9-1978 (annexure-r8) the contract of the petitioner was cancelled and the work was given to another agency for completion thereof. It may be noticed here that the unfinished work of the petitioner was duly assessed by the departmental authorities under due notice to him. Subsequently, by a registered letter dated 11-11-1980 he was intimated about the said fact clearly indicating therein that an additional sum of Rs. 32,854. 65 had to be spent by the government in getting the balance of work done, and he was called upon to pay the same. Subsequently, by a registered letter dated 11-11-1980 he was intimated about the said fact clearly indicating therein that an additional sum of Rs. 32,854. 65 had to be spent by the government in getting the balance of work done, and he was called upon to pay the same. Since the petitioner failed to pay the said sum, respondent-deputy commissioner was requested to recover the same as the arrears of land revenue as provided under clause 50 of the agreement read with Section 190 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter,'the act' only ). Present writ petition has been filed against the said recovery proceedings. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned recovery proceedings on the ground that since the alleged breach of contract has not been admitted by the petitioner, therefore the authorities had no jurisdiction to initiate the impugned recovery proceedings. According to him, even if there is a breach, damages cannot be quantified by the authorities because in law the authorities to the dispute cannot ACT as arbiter in relation to the same. In support of his proposition, he relied on a decision of the supreme court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, Thirthahalli. On the contrary, learned High Court government pleader, with reference to the original records as also the two statement of objections filed on behalf of respondents, submits that in the present case breach is writ large on the face of the records and the quantum sought to be recovered is based on the documents, without involving any discretion of assessment thereof by any particular authority. ( 3 ) FOR appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain conditions incorporated in the agreement. ( 3 ) FOR appreciating the rival contentions, it is necessary to refer to certain conditions incorporated in the agreement. These are the following:"clause 3 (c): to measure up the work of the contractor and to take such part thereof as is remaining unexecuted out of his hands, and to give it to another contractor to complete it in which case any expenses which may be incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to the original contractor, if the whole work had been executed by him (as to the amount of which excess expenses the certificate in writing of the executive engineer shall be final and conclusive) shall be borne and paid by the original contractor and shall be deducted from any money due to him by government under this contract or otherwise or from his security deposit or the proceeds of sale thereof, or a sufficient part thereof. "clause 39: all money due from the contractor under this contract may be recovered by government without prejudice to the other remedies, as if they were arrears of land revenue". clause 3 relates to extra cost of an unexecuted work. In the present case it is not in dispute that the petitioner has failed to execute the work undertaken by him within the stipulated time despite repeated reminders and therefore the breach is undisputable. No further adjudication in this regard was required. Consequent to the said breach of contract, government and its officers had entrusted the work to some other contractor for its completion. Clause 3 (c) clearly stipulates that if in the process of re-entrustment of work, the government were to incur any extra cost or expenses, the same shall have to be borne by the original contractor. ( 4 ) IN the present case, petitioner was duly informed under registered post regarding re-entrustment of work and the terms on which it was so entrusted and the extra cost which the government had to incur. Petitioner instead of raising any objection regarding the facts intimated to him, slept over the same without caring to abide by the terms of agreement. Accordingly the present recovery proceedings were initiated. Petitioner instead of raising any objection regarding the facts intimated to him, slept over the same without caring to abide by the terms of agreement. Accordingly the present recovery proceedings were initiated. ( 5 ) IN my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, neither there is any dispute regarding breach of the terms of contract nor the amount sought to be recovered is in the form of any assessed damages determined by an officer of the government. Under clause 3 (c) of the agreement, on the very happening of the event envisaged therein, the contractor did bind himself to pay the extra cost or excess amount incurred by the government in execution of the unfinished work. Such extra expenses which had been borne by the government have been culled out from the records and they have not been quantified pursuant to any assessment by any officer. The figures are ascertainable and definite. ( 6 ) IN the above view of the matter, in my opinion, the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, supra, regarding adjudication of a dispute relating to breach of agreement or assessment of damages, has no bearing on the facts of this case. I may also notice that in the said judgment of the apex court, while reversing the judgment of the full bench of this court, has clearly held that if the agreement provides for liquidated sum being paid as damages for breach of conditions instead of a sum to be assessed by the deputy commissioner, it cannot be said that the specified damages will not be the money due under the contract and hence the damages cannot be recovered under the revenue recovery act. What applied to the specific damages will likewise apply to the damages which are quantified after assessment. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons as aforesaid, writ petition fails. No costs. Revenue authorities may now proceed to recover the dues from the petitioner in accordance with law. --- *** --- .