R. R. K. TRIVEDI AND R. K. SINGH, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri I. M. Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this petition may be decided finally at this stage. ( 2 ) THIS petition has been filed challenging the recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,61. 464 as arrears of land revenue on the basis of the citation dated 20. 11. 1997, Annexure-6 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the loan was sanctioned by mortgage of the properties of the Society and the amount cannot be recovered from the personal property of the Secretary of the Society or from any other property. Learned counsel has relied on the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Pubic Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act in support of the aforesaid submission. Learned counsel has also placed reliance in case : Ashok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1979 ALJ 203. Learned counsel has pointed out that Khadi Gramodyog board is included In the Appendix attached to the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act and Board is a notified Corporation under Section 3 of the said Act. ( 4 ) SHRI I. M. Kushwaha, on the other hand, submitted that action of the respondents to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue is under Section 35aofu. P. Khadi and Village Industries board Act, 1960 and in the present case, the provisions of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of dues) Act. 1972 are not applicable. He also submitted that the Division Bench case relied on by the petitioner pertains to Section 4 of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act and it is not applicable to the present case. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 35a of the u. P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act. I960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under : "35a. ( 5 ) WE have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 35a of the u. P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act. I960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as under : "35a. Where any amount is recoverable by the Board on account of any loan or advance or grant made by it for the purpose of development of Khadi and Village Industries, the same may, without prejudice to any other remedy provided by taw, be recovered as arrears of land revenue. " ( 6 ) FROM a perusal of the aforesaid Section 35a, it is clear that the Act, under which the Khadi gramodyog Board has been established, itself contains provision for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. However, it is subject to condition that loan, advance or grant made by the Board, should be for the purpose of development of Khadi and Village Industries. It is not disputed that in the present case, the amount of Rs. 1,20. 000 was given to petitioner society for construction of building for Iron and Wood Cottage Industries. The loan was thus for development of village industries and it could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under section 35a of the Act. ( 7 ) PROVISIONS of U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. 1972 have also been made applicable by Including the Board in the Appendix. However, the purpose behind it appears to provide an additional remedy to the Board, for recovery of such amounts due to the Board, which are not covered by Section 35a of the Act. But, on this basis, it cannot be said that provisions of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act may be applicable to the present recovery proceedings which are for recovery of the amount covered under Section 35a of the act. Section 35a is an enabling provision under which the amount may be recovered as arrears of land revenue on the basis of the recovery certificate sent by the Board to the revenue authorities and the procedure provided in the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and Rules framed thereunder becomes applicable. The judgment of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Singh (supra), is thus distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. The judgment of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Singh (supra), is thus distinguishable and not applicable to the present case. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The petition has no merit and is accordingly rejected. .