Honble GUPTA,J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge Annex. 6, the demand notice, dated 8.10.1991, and in the alternative for direction to the respondents to first determine the amount of dues as per the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before effecting recovery. The writ petition was filed way back on 14.11.1991, and was admitted by this Court on 25.11.1991. While admitting the writ petition, interim stay order was granted staying the operation of Annex. 6 till 7.12.1991. Admittedly, this stay has not been extended thereafter. Be that as it may. (3). The allegations of the petitioner in the writ petition are that the State of Rajasthan introduced the scheme for development of rural area, through the agency being, like the one, as respondent No.3. Under that scheme, the petitioner was given 70 Hectare of land along with Tube well vide order dt. 3.11.1987. Ex. 1. and pursuance thereto, the agreement Ex. 2 was made. According to the petitioner, he spent more than Rs. 1 lac in development of the land. Then after narrating some facts regarding the persons employed by the petitioner for managing the affairs and some of those persons committing bungling, embezzlement etc., in para No. 6 it has been pleaded that ``as per agreement and practice, the amount of loan given to the petitioner i.e. Rs. 7,50,000/- was to be adjusted first out of the sale value of the fodder, the fodder which was supplied and sold by the petitioner, but on account of hand in glove of Shri Ujjawal with the district administration machinery, he took the cash money as price of fodder and the officials of the respondents No.2 and 3 did not make any adjustment against the loan and on this account, there was the payment of Rs. 6,50,000/- to Shri Ujjawal. This sale price of fodder which was taken from the office of respondent No.2 and No. 3 by Shri Ujjawal was never given to the petitioner. (4). Thereafter, in para No. 8, it has been pleaded that the amount of loan which was taken by the petitioner Unit from the State of Rajasthan remained unpaid on account of having hand in glove with Shri Avardhan Ujjawal. (4). Thereafter, in para No. 8, it has been pleaded that the amount of loan which was taken by the petitioner Unit from the State of Rajasthan remained unpaid on account of having hand in glove with Shri Avardhan Ujjawal. Then in the same para, it has been pleaded that ``on receipt of the demand notice dated 8.10.1991, the officials of the petitioner tried to enquire and found that the District Collector, Jaisalmer has issued demand notice for the recovery of Rs. 7,50,000 which was given as advance to the petitioner for the establishment of forum at village Jetha in the year 1987. ``With this averment, it has been pleaded that before issuance of Annex. 6, no notice of information was given to the petitioner, and without complying with the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, and Public Demand Recovery Act, respondent No. 4 has been asked to recover the amount. (5). In the background of these averments, instead of all the grounds raised in the writ petition, it was sought to be argued that Annex. 6 is not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 229 of the Land Revenue Act, and is violative of the principles of natural justice. Suffice to say that Annex. 6 is a wholly innocuous communication simply informing the petitioner to deposit the amount by the given date and informating him that in the event of failure, further action for realization of the dues will be taken against it. This clearly appears to have been given with a view to ensure that if there be any dispute about it, as a good gesture, it may be entertained. However, as is clear from the averments of para No. 8 of the writ petition that it is not in dispute that a loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- was advanced to the petitioner in the year 1987, and accept the story of embezzlement having been committed by Shri Ujjawal. It is no-where the averment of the petitioner that even any part of this amount was ever repaid by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the petitioner rightly did not have any objection to raise, and the respondents are free to proceed ahead to effect recovery of the amount in accordance with the further procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. (6). In that view of the matter, the petitioner rightly did not have any objection to raise, and the respondents are free to proceed ahead to effect recovery of the amount in accordance with the further procedure prescribed under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. (6). I may notice here that even so far as the allegation about embezzlement committed by Shri Avardhan Ujjawal is concerned, the averment made in para No. 6 of the writ petition, shows that it is alleged that the fodder was supplied, and according to the petitioner, in terms of the loan agreement, the price of fodder was to be adjusted against the loan, but instead, the respondents No.2 and 3, made cash payment to Shri Avardhan Ujjawal, who even according to para No. 5 of the writ petition was an employee of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, whatever be the rights of the petitioner against Shri Avardhan Ujjawal, even according to the petition, the respondents No.2 and 3, did not receive back any part of the loan amount in cash or in kind (fodder). (7). Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner do not have any substance so far as the challenge to Annex. 6 is concerned. (8). It was then contended that under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, a detailed procedure has been given for creating and determining the amount to be recovered from the petitioner, but no notice whatsoever was given for determining the amount due. (9). Suffice it to say that learned counsel could not point out any provision as pleaded in ground (iv). Secondly, as observed above, when it is not in dispute that the loan of Rs. 7,50,000/- was taken by the petitioner in the year 1987, and it is also not in dispute that no part of the loan has been repaid by the petitioner to the authority from whom the loan was taken, whether in cash or in kind, even this ground need not detain me any further. (10). The net result is that the writ petition has no force, and the same is hereby dismissed.