SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) WITH the consent of learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has impugned the demands made by the respondent vide letter dated 28. 3. 2000 under section 68 of the Punjab land Revenue Act, 1887. ( 4 ) THE limited facts necessary to adjudicate the present controversy are that there was a contract entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 on 20. 5. 83 when the tender was accepted. The contract was rescinded by respondent No. 2 on 27. 6. 84 and the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause. The arbitrator after entering upon reference made and published his award on 5. 3. 90, It may be noticed that respondent no. 2 levied compensation of Rs. 1,36,091,00 which also formed part of the award. In terms pf the judgment in Suit No. 1378-A/90 decided on 19. 9. 1997 the award dated 5,3,90 was made rule of the court except to the extent that the consideration of the claim towards compensation by the arbitrator was beyond the purview of the arbitration and thus that claim was set aside. Respondent No. 2 made payments to the petitioner in pursuance to the award, ( 5 ) IT is only on 28. 3. 2000 after a lapse of 3 years that the impugned order was passed seeking to recover the said amount of rs. 1,36,091/- together with interest as arrears of land revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there Is no question of the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue since the mode of recovery of any such claim is prescribed In clause 29 of the terms and conditions of the contract and in view of the judgment of the Supreme court in State of Punjab and Ors Vs. S dharam Singh (Dead) by successor Desa singh and ors AIR 1985 SC 751, in case of a contract the mode prescribed in the contract for recovery has to be first implemented and the recovery should not take place in the form of arrears of land revenue. S dharam Singh (Dead) by successor Desa singh and ors AIR 1985 SC 751, in case of a contract the mode prescribed in the contract for recovery has to be first implemented and the recovery should not take place in the form of arrears of land revenue. ( 6 ) CLAUSE 29 provides that it is open to respondent No. 2 to with-hold and have a lien in respect of the sums claimed and such lien would continue till the claim arising out of or under the contract is determined by the arbitrator or by the competent court. ( 7 ) THE only defence by learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is that the amount is sought to be recovered as land revenue by invoking the provisions of section 40a of the DDA Act, 1957 which prescribes that any money due to the DDA may be recovered as arrears of land revenue if the recovery thereof is not expressly provided for in any of the provisions of the said Act. ( 8 ) I have considered the submissions advanced by teamed counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) IT is apparent that clause 29 itself prescribes the mode of with-holding and maintaining a lien in respect of the amounts with the DDA and such amount can be retained till determination of the daim by the arbitrator or by the competent court. In the present case the claim was adjudicated by the arbitrator but subsequently in terms of the judgment of this court dated 19. 9. 97 such daim was held to be outside the purview of the arbitration. Not only this after the said judgment all the amounts payable under the award to the extent it was made rule of the court were paid by respondent No. 2. Admittedly, no adjudication has taken place in respect of this daim of respondent No. 2 by any competent court after the same was held not to be arbitrable. Since the method is provided in clause 29 of the terms and conditions of the contract itself it was not open to the respondents to have invoked the provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue act and seek to recover the amounts as arrears of land revenue specially in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in State of Punjab s case (supra ). ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid the impugned order dated 28. 3. 2000 of respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Writ petition stands disposed of cm 2680/2000 no further orders are called for in this application in view of the disposal of the writ petition. Application stands disposed of.