M. KATJU, R. B. MISRA, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 28. 3. 2001 (Annexure-9 to the petition) as well as the order of termination of his service dated 10. 2. 1982 (Annexure-2 to the petition) and the orders dated 8. 3. 1988 (Annexures-3 and 4 to the petition) by which certain sums were ordered to be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was an Assistant Agriculture Inspector having been appointed In the year 1958. He was placed under suspension on 30. 3. 1974 and an F. I. R. under Section 409 as well as 477a. I. P. C. , was also filed against him. He was convicted in the criminal case by the learned C. J. M. and in the departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service with further direction to refund the amount of loss caused to the Government. True copy of the Judgment in the criminal case has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition. True copy of the termination order dated 10. 2. 82 Is Annexure-2 to the petition. The appeal against the conviction in the criminal case was also dismissed on 31. 10. 84. ( 4 ) THE petitioner challenged the termination order before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal but his claim petition was dismissed on 28. 3. 2001. Hence this petition. ( 5 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing. Serious allegations have been made against the petitioner as is evident from a perusal of the Impugned termination order dated 10. 2. 82. He has alleged to have caused a loss of Rs. 2,68,298. 50 due to fictitious entries which he had made. ( 6 ) THE findings in the enquiry that the petitioner has defalcated Government money are findings of fact and we cannot interefere with the same in writ jurisdiction. We therefore, upheld the termination order. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner then submitted that recovery cannot be made as arrears of land revenue. This submission appears to be correct. Only those amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue for which there Is a statutory provision vide Ram Bilas Tibriwal v. Chairman. Municipal Board. 1998 (2) AWC 1468 and Anupam Sari Centre v. Collector, 1999 (1) AWC 237 . This submission appears to be correct. Only those amount can be recovered as arrears of land revenue for which there Is a statutory provision vide Ram Bilas Tibriwal v. Chairman. Municipal Board. 1998 (2) AWC 1468 and Anupam Sari Centre v. Collector, 1999 (1) AWC 237 . However, no such statutory provision has been shown to us. Hence, we direct that the amount in question cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue, and the orders dated 8. 3. 88 (Copy of which are Annexures 3 and 4 to the petition) are quashed. ( 8 ) THE petition is disposed off accordingly. .