JUDGMENT Honble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs, which are being quoted below : “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery proceedings against the petitioner pending before respondent No. 3 in pursuance of recovery application/certificate dated 10.9.2007 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ or mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to issue debt waiver certificate to the petitioner as provided under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme-2008. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 5 to dispose of the application dated 12.8.2008 filed by the petitioner.” 2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner took loan for dairy purpose after mortgaging the property in question on 20.2.2003. The deed in question was signed by the petitioner and duly attested by witness Shyam Sunder. As per terms and conditions of the aforesaid deed, amount in question (i.e. Rs. 1,00,000) was advanced by way of loan. The terms of the deed were also clear and categorical. The factual position which emerges in the present case is that the amount which was to be refunded had not been refunded and for the said purposes notice had been given by the Branch Manager of U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., Branch Jasra, District Allahabad. As the amount in question was due, as such for recovery of the amount, the Branch Manager requested the District Assistant Registrar, Allahabad to get the amount in question recovered. Thereafter, as to whether the said position was correct or not, qua the same verification proceedings were undertaken by the District Assistant Registrar, and after recording full satisfaction that the amount was due, the District Assistant Registrar referred the matter to the Collector. Thereafter, the Collector passed an order that all over dues may be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. Pursuant to the aforementioned directives, Tehsildar concerned has proceeded to press the recovery proceedings, for which notice had been issued fixing 20.12.2007. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed with the prayers quoted above. 3. Thereafter, the Collector passed an order that all over dues may be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. Pursuant to the aforementioned directives, Tehsildar concerned has proceeded to press the recovery proceedings, for which notice had been issued fixing 20.12.2007. Thereafter, present writ petition has been filed with the prayers quoted above. 3. Sri Jagannath Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case amount in question could not have been recovered as has been sought to be done in the present case, as such recovery proceedings are bad, and coupled with this under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, petitioner’s claim is entitled to be considered for exemption, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. 4. Countering the said submission Sri Shiv Nath Singh, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case admitted position is that in lieu of mortgaging his land, the loan amount had been advanced to the petitioner, and once the loan amount has not been repaid, then it has been sought to be contended that recovery proceedings are being pressed strictly in accordance with law. As far as consideration of claim under Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 is concerned, it has been contended that it can always be done. 5. The first question to be adverted to is as to whether recovery proceedings are being rightly carried out or not. The factual position from the own record of the petitioner, which has been appended and from which it is clear that on 20.2.2003 mortgage deed was prepared, and as per the same Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be advanced on annual interest rate of 14 per cent and the instalments in question were to be paid within five years. This fact has not been disputed before this Court that there has been default in payment of the instalments. However, without there being any foundation and basis, it has been sought to be mentioned that the amount of loan was Rs. 45,000/­ and the mortgage deed contained incorrect description of loan amount. Such factual assertion cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. They are essentially questions of fact, for which the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum. Here position which emerges is that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced for dairy purpose on annual interest rate of 14 per cent. Such factual assertion cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. They are essentially questions of fact, for which the petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum. Here position which emerges is that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was advanced for dairy purpose on annual interest rate of 14 per cent. The amount of loan was to be repaid within five years, and for realization of the said amount notice had been given, as the amount in question was not at all paid till 30.6.2007. In this background District Assistant Registrar was requested by the Branch Manager of the concerned Bank that the said amount be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. The District Assistant Registrar after verifying the fact that the amount in question was admittedly due against the petitioner, then certificate was issued and the matter was referred to the Collector, who in his turn has passed order for making recovery of the amount in question as arrears of Land Revenue. Thus, in the present case procedure which has been followed for recovery of the amount, as the amount was not repaid till 30.6.2007, is in no way unjustifiable. 6. Chapter V-A of the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Banks Rules, 1971 deals with Financial Assistance and Sureties. Rule 44 thereof deals with the conditions for financial assistance on furnishing sureties. Rule 45 deals with recovery of arrears of loans secured on furnishing sureties. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 45 clearly provides that Registrar may on an application made in this behalf for the recovery of arrears of any loan or any instalment thereof on furnishing statement of accounts in respect of such loans and after making such enquiries, if any, as he thinks fit, issue a certificate for recovery of the amount due. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 provides that a certificate issued by the Registrar under sub-rule (1) shall be final and conclusive proof of the dues which shall be recoverable as arrears of Land Revenue from the sureties and the borrower, jointly and severally. 7. In the present case, application has been moved by the Branch Manager of the bank who was authorised in this behalf, and thereafter, District Assistant Registrar has confirmed after making enquiries that the amount in question was due and thereafter certificate has been issued by him. 7. In the present case, application has been moved by the Branch Manager of the bank who was authorised in this behalf, and thereafter, District Assistant Registrar has confirmed after making enquiries that the amount in question was due and thereafter certificate has been issued by him. Thereafter, Collector has proceeded to pass order that the amount may be recovered as arrears of Land Revenue. 8. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that in the present case, District Assistant Registrar is not competent to issue certificate. There appears to be complete misconception in the mind of the petitioner, inasmuch as under Rule 2 (e) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, the term “Assistant Registrar” has been defined and it means a person appointed as Assistant Registrar under sub-section (2) of Section 3 and District Assistant Registrar means an Assistant Registrar appointed to hold charge of co-operative activities of a district. In the present case it is not disputed that the District Assistant Registrar holds charge of co-operative activities of the district. Once appointment of Assistant Registrar has been made under sub­section (2) of Section 3 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, then the District Assistant Registrar appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 3 is fully competent and authorised to discharge the functions of Registrar, and in this background, it cannot be said that the District Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed with the matter. Coupled with this, under the scheme of things provided for under Sections 91, 92 and 95-A of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, Registrar or any other Gazetted Officer, authorised by him, on the application moved, can pass order in respect of outstanding dues, which is subject to charge. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tried to rely on the Government order dated 27.12.1975, contending that as far as District Assistant Registrars are concerned, they can exercise the authority of Registrar only wherein Head Quarter of the Primary Cooperative Societies are in their territory. Said Government Order deals with the authority of Registrar to be exercised, but it in no way denudes the District Assistant Registrar who holds the charge of cooperative activities of a district. Here, in the present case, District Assistant Registrar holds the charge of cooperative activities of the district, and he, after verifying the facts, has issued certificate, and thereafter recovery proceedings have been pressed. Here, in the present case, District Assistant Registrar holds the charge of cooperative activities of the district, and he, after verifying the facts, has issued certificate, and thereafter recovery proceedings have been pressed. Therefore, it cannot be said that the recovery proceedings are without jurisdiction. 10. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3147 of 2009, Shesh Bahadur v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 22.1.2009 wherein commercial loan was sought to be recovered. Facts of the said case have been considered. In the said case notice had been issued by the Branch Manager of the Bank; the argument was advanced that the Bank had straightway issued notice for the purpose of recovery and citation without following Rule 5. In this background, same was quashed. Here the position is altogether different, which is clearly reflected from the documents filed by the petitioner himself, that the bank had requested the District Assistant Registrar, who in his turn having verified the fact that the amount was due had issued certificate and then recovery proceedings were initiated. Thus, the judgment relied upon will not come to rescue of the petitioner. 11. The next judgment on which reliance has been placed is judgment in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 70889 of 2006, Mohd. Hanif v. State of U.P. and others decided on 19.2.2007. In the said case arguments advanced were that the General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. cannot directly issue recovery certificate, and in this background, proceedings in question were quashed. Here, as discussed above, proceedings have been initiated strictly in accordance with law, and there is no lack of jurisdiction, as such this judgment too will not come to rescue of the petitioner. 12. Consequently, in the facts of the case, recovery proceedings are being undertaken by the Assistant Collector; same cannot be said to be vitiated by any error, as such, the first relief prayed for cannot be accorded to the petitioner. 12. Consequently, in the facts of the case, recovery proceedings are being undertaken by the Assistant Collector; same cannot be said to be vitiated by any error, as such, the first relief prayed for cannot be accorded to the petitioner. As far as second prayer is concerned, it is true that Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 has been framed in order to extend relief to the farmers, and for grant of said relief, petitioner has already approached the Grievance Redressal Officer, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Lucknow, as such said respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 13. In terms of above discussion and observation, present writ petition is disposed of. ————