Honble YADAV, J.–By filing the present writ petition the petitioner has called in question the legality and validity of the notice dated 16.8.91 (Annex.12 to the writ petition ) issued by Additional Collector, Jalore under Sec.229 of the Land Revenue Act, 1956 on the basis of which the respondents intend to recover Rs. 2,71,630/- from the petitioner Bhinmal Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., Bhinmal as arrea- rs of land revenue. (2). The controversy in the instant writ petition arises in the following facts and circumstances. (3). The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and is working in the interest of the public at large. A major cal- amity and drought condition occurred in district Jalore and in view of the extreme calamity and famine condition the Collector, Jalore requested the petitioner to assist him in proper supply of fodder. In the interest of public at large, the petitioner agreed to assist the administration to distribute the fodder in drought affected areas. The order of the Collector authorising the petitioner to supply fodder in Dis- trict Jalore dated 21.8.87 is filed and marked as Annex. 1 to the writ petition. (4). After accepting the aforesaid offer, the petitioner informed that the rate of fodder would be according to the market situation, including transportation charge plus administrative charges. The acceptance letter dated 4.9.87 is filed and marked as Annex. 2 to the writ petition. (5).It is borne out from perusal of Annex.6 to the writ petition that the Government of Rajasthan (Relief Department ) Jaipur vide its order dated 11.4.88 issued instructions for concurrent / internal audit of Fodder Transportation Subsidy and Cattle Camp Subsidy according to which the transportation Subsidy was made payable on actual transport quantity and not on distributed quantity. Regarding per- missible pilferage (Chhijet) it was instructed that it would be decided by the Collector, permitting pilferage of maximum 5% in case of dry and 8% in case of Green subject to actuals. The terms and conditions of the instructions dated 11.4.88 (Annex.6) further stipulated that the transport subsidy claim would be verified by the Tehsildar on the basis of quantity verification by Patwari. The terms and conditions of the instructions dated 11.4.88 (Annex.6) further stipulated that the transport subsidy claim would be verified by the Tehsildar on the basis of quantity verification by Patwari. The quantity verifica- tion could be done by the Patwari either on the bill itself or in the alternative it could be done by the Patwari in the distribution register which can form basis for the same in which a Patwari need not verify the quantity on the bill. It is further stipulated that as soon as the audit for a particular period of transportation is completed,the report should be given to the Collector concerned. Any audit objec- tion should also be conveyed to the voluntary agencies involved and their replies should be obtained. These replies should be considered by the Audit Party and a final view would be taken and settled by the Collector finally. (6). It is pertinent to mention here that the above transaction was executed on the basis of `no profit no loss and in case of any profit, it should be paid to the non petitioners. However, on account of complaint against certain persons and institutions an enquiry was instituted and in the said enquiry Rs.4,26,349/- were shown to be outstanding against the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that this enquiry by the Concurrent Auditor of Famine Department was conducted at the back of the petitioner without affording him an opportunity to be heard. The copy of the letter dated 7.10.88, showing Rs.4,88,442/- outstanding against the petitioner is filed and marked as Annex. 8 to the writ petition. (7). In pursuance of the notices Annex. 7 and 8 received for outstanding amount, the petitioner gave a detail reply along with the statement explaining every point that the enquiry report was incorrect and the petitioner executed the work on `no profit-No loss basis and nothing was recoverable against him. The explanation of the petitioner along with the statement of outstanding amount is also filed and marked as Annex.9 and Annex. 10 to the writ petition. (8). It is important to note that after detail reply given by the petitioner the Collector, Jalore, who entrusted the work to the petitioner was satisfied to the hilt and he informed to non petitioner No.1 that nothing was outstanding against the petitioner and no recovery should be made against him. 10 to the writ petition. (8). It is important to note that after detail reply given by the petitioner the Collector, Jalore, who entrusted the work to the petitioner was satisfied to the hilt and he informed to non petitioner No.1 that nothing was outstanding against the petitioner and no recovery should be made against him. However, inspite of the recommendation made by the Collector, Jalore dated 16.6.89 after on other ex parte inquiry the impugned notice dated 16.8.91 (Annex.12 ) has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in the reply to the impugned notice (Annex.12) reiterated the stand taken by him earlier but the non petitioner No.3 insisted on recovering the amount mentioned in Annex.12 as arrears of land revenue which complied the petitioner to file the present writ petition. (9). After service of notice, non petitioners No. 1 to 3 filed a joint return, denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner can never be allowed to charge claims from the State on a document giving false information and such over-payments from the Government Exchequers is always recoverable from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The respon- dents has also filed audit report which is marked as Annex. R/1 to the reply . It is also averred in the reply that the petitioner has overcharged for losses, more than the actual distance of transport etc. and therefore the amount was clearly recoverable from the petitioner. As regards the recommendation of the Collector, Jalore dated 16.6.89 (Annex. 11) it is averred that this was simply a recommendation of the Collector which was subject to approval of the State Government, therefore, it cannot be said that the recommendation of the Collector dated 16.6.89 (Annex.11) has attained finality and no amount can be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. (10). From the averments of the writ petition and from the reply filed on behalf of the non-petitioners it is clear that the terms and conditions of the contract between the petitioner Bhinmal Cooperative Marketing Society and the State Government was for distribution of fodder and it was regulated by the instructions dated 11.4.88 issued from Government of Rajasthan(Relief Department), Jaipur (Annex.6) wherein it is clearly stipulated that the Collector would finally settle the disputes between the parties after final view by the Audit party. It is to be noticed that the Collector, Jalore in the present case after going through the audit report and the explanation filed by the petitioner recommended on16.6.89 (Annex.11) that there was no outstanding dues against the petitioner and nothing should be recovered from it after its deposit of Rs.29,097/- to the State Account. (11). The facts and circumstances averred in the writ petition and in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents bring me to the short question whether the recovery proceedings of Rs.2,71,630/- against the petitioner under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 is justified or not particularly when the Collector, Jalore after taking into account the audit report for recovery against the petitioner and the explanation submitted, petitioner has vide his recommendation dated 16.6.89 (Annex.11) informed to the non petitioner No.1 that there was no outstanding dues against the petitioner after its deposit of Rs.29,097/- to the State Account. To my mind, the crux of the answer to the aforesaid question lies on the interpretation of Sec.256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- ``256 Recovery of miscellaneous revenue and other moneys- The following moneys may be recovered under this Act in the same manner as an arrear of revenue- (a) all sums of money declared by this Act or by any law for the time being in force other than the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 (Rajasthan Act 5 of 1962) (1) to be recoverable as an arrear of revenue and revenue or rent, or (ii) to be a demand or public demand or to be recoverable or realisable as a demand or a public demand or as an arrear of a demand or a public demand; (b). all sums of money payable to the State Govt. or to department or an officer of the State Govt. all sums of money payable to the State Govt. or to department or an officer of the State Govt. or to a local authority on account of rates, duties taxes, charges or other dues under any law or rule having the force of law, notwithstanding that such law or rule does not declare the same to be recoverable or realisable as an arrear of revenue or land revenue or rent or to be a demand or a public demand or to be recoverable as an arrear of a demand or public demand;- (c) all sums of money payable to the State Government or to a department or an officer of the State Government or to a local - (i) by way of fees, fines, penalties, compensation of costs imposed or awarded by any authority, not being a civil or criminal court under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, or (ii) on account of pasturage forests rights, fishcries mill, natural products of land water-rates, irrigation charge, maintenance and management of irrigation works and the like; (d) all rents, premia, cesses, rates, fees and royalties due to the State Government on account of the use or occupation of land or water or other immovable property, whether belonging to the State Government or not, or on account of any products there of or proceeds there from or on any other account; (e) all sums of money due to the State Government under any grant, lease or contract which provides that they shall be recoverable as arrears of revenue as land revenue. (12). It is settled principle of law that a complete contract comes into existence when the acceptance of an offer has been communicated to the offerer. Thus, its acceptance gives rise to the cause of action and not merely an offer. Here in the present case an offer was made by the Collector, Jalore to the petitioner to distri- bute fodder during the financial year 1988 at subsidised price on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Government order dated 11.4.88 (Annex.6), which was accepted by the petitioner. Here in the present case an offer was made by the Collector, Jalore to the petitioner to distri- bute fodder during the financial year 1988 at subsidised price on the terms and conditions stipulated in the Government order dated 11.4.88 (Annex.6), which was accepted by the petitioner. It is evident from perusal of Annex.6 to the writ petition that there is no provision in it to the effect that the amount claimed under the contract by the State Government, which is seriously denied by the petitioner, wou- ld be recoverable as arrears of land revenue, hence within the meaning of Sec. 256(e) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the aforesaid amount is not recoverable as arrears of land revenue. I have no hesitation to hold that mere claims made by the non petitioners to recover Rs.2,71,630/- as arrears of land revenue which amount is seriously disputed by the petitioner is not recoverable as land revenue with in the meaning of clause (e) of Sec. 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It is shocking to note from perusal of Annex.7 to the writ petition that initially Rs.4,25,349/- was claimed by the non petitioners from the petitioner which they intend to recover from it as arrears of land revenue but after the account was finally settled by Collector, Jalore on 16.6.89 and the petitioner deposited Rs. 29,097/- in the State Account the amount sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue was reduced from Rs.4,25,439/- to Rs. 2,71,630/-. The settlement of account by the Collector dated 16.6.89 Annex.11 has been ignored without meeting the reasons given by him that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (13). In the aforesaid backdrop I would like to examine from another angle the legality and validity of the present recovery proceedings of Rs.2,71,630/- from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. (14). Section 256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act forms parts of Chapter X of the said Act. In the aforesaid Chapter X Sec. 224 to 254 lay down the procedure for collection of revenue and the various processes for recovery there of. Sec. 256 deals with the recovery of miscellaneous revenue and other moneys due as arrears of land revenue Section 257-A and 257-B were substituted by Rajasthan Act No.42 of 1960. In the aforesaid Chapter X Sec. 224 to 254 lay down the procedure for collection of revenue and the various processes for recovery there of. Sec. 256 deals with the recovery of miscellaneous revenue and other moneys due as arrears of land revenue Section 257-A and 257-B were substituted by Rajasthan Act No.42 of 1960. Section 256-A lays down the requirements of an application which may be made by an officer or authority to whom any sum of money is due for the recovery there of, and such application will have to be made to the Collector. There is a proviso to this Section which further provides that no such application shall be necessary in cases where a certificate or certified statement of account or other document specifying the required particulars has to be sent to the Collector according to law under which such sum of money is payable. Sub-Section(2) of this Section is then very important and provides that such application or certificate or statement of account shall be conclusive evidence of the existence of the arrear payable to the authority signing the same as also of the amount of such arrear and of the person who is the defaulter. Section 257-A is followed by Section 257-B which postulates that a person against whom action has been taken under Sec.256 or 257 must pay the amount claimed, though, where he wants to challenge the same, he may deliver a protest signed by himself or by his authorised agent. Sub-Section (3) of this Section clarifies that it will be open to a person making a payment under protest to institute a suit for the recovery of the whole or part of the sum so paid by him under protest. This provision has been further made subject to a condition that where the law under which a particular sum of money paid under protest is due, provides a remedy by way of appeal, application or other proceedings then a suit under sub-Sec.(3) shall not lie. Lastly, it is provided under this Section that there shall be no appeal or reference from an order of the Revenue Officer passed in proceedings taken under this chapter for the recovery of sums of money within the meaning of Sec. 256 or 257. (15). Lastly, it is provided under this Section that there shall be no appeal or reference from an order of the Revenue Officer passed in proceedings taken under this chapter for the recovery of sums of money within the meaning of Sec. 256 or 257. (15). It is clear from perusal of Sec. 256 and other Sections mentioned hereinabove that the recovery made under these Sections is very stringent procedure. The sum sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue under Sec.256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is conclusive and the person from whom such sum is recovered as arrears of land revenue is not entitled to question it. The amount which is claimed by the State Government cannot be questioned by a person against whom it is said to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. (16). The expression used under clause (b) of Sec.256 ` or other dues under any law or rule having the force of law came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ganesh Ram vs. The Collector, Jalore (1) where in the then Honble Modi, Actg. C.J. speaking for the court ruled in paragraph 9 which reads thus:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx.On a careful and earnest consideration of the whole matter and having full regard to the implication of the stringent procedure provided under Sec. 256 and the following Sections in this behalf, we are on the whole definitely disposed to think that claims of this character do not and can not properly be held to fall within clause (b). A contrary view, in our considered judgment, may lead to highly anomalous results. In the first place, it is likely to put the citizen to unmerited hardships. A contrary view, in our considered judgment, may lead to highly anomalous results. In the first place, it is likely to put the citizen to unmerited hardships. In the second place, the wide interpretation which is contended before us on behalf of the State may make this particular part of clause (b) na- mely,` or other dues under any law or rule having the force of law open to serious constitutional objection as being violative of either Article 14 or Article 19 or both, and we think that in a situation like this, it is our duty to interpret the section in such a manner that it is saved from such an objection rather than that it should stand destroyed. (17). In the case of Ganesha Ram (supra) it is ruled by the Division Bench that there are `dues such as taxes duties rates, fees or the like which are leviable under a particular enactment and a definite procedure has been laid down for their asse- ssment under the Act itself where under an opportunity of hearing is available, as a matter of law, to the taxpayer or the person charged and, as a rule,opportunities are also available to the party affected by such levy or assessment to file an appeal or revision against the same, if he is aggrieved by it, and then the demand, so to speak, becomes a fixed and finalised one. According to the Division Bench in the aforesaid case these are only `dues in the proper sense of the word and these are recoverable as arrears of land revenue by the procedure laid down under Sec.256 of the Act provided of course they otherwise fall within its meaning. It is held with emphasis by the learned Judges constituting Division Bench in the case of Ganesha Ram (supra) that ``dues which are not dues but are merely claims which are of hi- ghly disputatious character or, in other words, which one party claims against another, but the latter seriously disputed them, and there is no machinery provided by the particular enactment under which they are sought to be raised for finalising them and consequently they cannot be accepted as having been ascertained nor properly ascertainable under that law. (18). (18). Here in the present case, the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner does not fall within th definition of `dues such as taxes, duties rates, fees or the like which are leviable under a particular enactment. The amount of Rs. 2,71,630/- claimed by the State from the petitioner is seriously disputed by the petitioner-Marketing Society and there is no machinery laid down under the parti- cular enactment under which they are sought to be raised for finalising them, therefore, this amount cannot be accepted having been ascertained under that law. It is further to be noticed that the audit report was made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and when the matter was referred to the Collector, Jalore with the detail explanation of the petitioner, he came to the con- clusion that no amount is recoverable from the petitioner after its deposit of Rs.29,097/- to the State Account. It is held that since the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner Marketing Society does not fall within the ambit of `dues as contemplated under clause (b) of Sec.256 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, therefore, it is not recoverable as arrears of land revenue. I am fortified in taking the aforesaid view from the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesha Ram (supra). (19). As a result of aforementioned discussion, the instant writ petition succeeds and it is here by allowed. The order of recovery of amount of Rs.2,71,630/- against the petitioner dated 16.8.91 (Annex.12 ) is quashed,. The State Government and its officers are prohibited from taking any action against the petitioner for recovery of the aforesaid sum under Sec.256 or the allied Sections of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. However, it is made clear that this will not prevent the non- petitioners from taking such further proceedings against the petitioner as may be open to them, to have alleged liability fixed and the necessary recoveries, if any, effected against the petitioner-Marketing Society according to law. Under the circumstances, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.