JUDGMENT In substance the prayers made in the writ petition are for the quashing of the recovery citation dated February 16, 1985 and the letter dated August 20, 2004 of the Assistant Collector, First Class/S.D.M., Bharthana directing the Deputy Post Master, Bharthana to pay a sum of Rs. 7,55,948 as arrears of sale tax dues from the post office account of the petitioner and for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to return a sum of Rs. 3,36,000 with interest which is said to have already been released by the Deputy Post Master on August 24, 2004 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per letter dated September 2, 2004. The petitioner Shiv Nath Singh Yadav (since deceased), now represented by his widow Smt. Tara Devi Yadav was doing business of food-grains. He fell in arrears of sales tax for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 detailed as under : A.Y. Date of assessment order Tax imposed in Rs. Tax deposited in Rs. Arrears in Rs. 1972-73 30.01.1978 18,000 6,954.41 11,045.59 1973-74 30.01.1978 22,500 5,800.00 16,692.00 1974-75 22.07.1978 60,000 6,570.00 53,430.00 1975-76 18.01.1990 53,626 Nil 53,626.00 - - - Total Rs. 1,34,793.59 The Sale Tax Officer, Etawah, issued recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 to Tehsildar, Bharthana, to recover a sum of Rs. 1,34,793.59 paise from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. In pursuance of the aforesaid recovery certificate, it is said that the share of the petitioner in plots Nos. 539, 213, 214 and 228 of village Singhpur and plot Nos. 799, 800 and 802 of village Khandesi Pacher were attached and were put to auction. The petitioner Was not given any information of the auction proceedings or the amount fetched in the auction so conducted. Respondent No. 1 after a lapse of about 20 years wrote a letter dated August 20, 2004 to the Deputy Post Master, Bharthana for payment of Rs. 7,55,948 from the petitioner's post office monthly scheme accounts as the balance of tax due and interest thereon. The Deputy Post Master without any intimation to the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 48,000 each from the seven monthly saving accounts of the petitioner with the post office on August 24, 2004 and made the payment of Rs. 3,36,000. 7,55,948 from the petitioner's post office monthly scheme accounts as the balance of tax due and interest thereon. The Deputy Post Master without any intimation to the petitioner withdrew a sum of Rs. 48,000 each from the seven monthly saving accounts of the petitioner with the post office on August 24, 2004 and made the payment of Rs. 3,36,000. Respondent No. 1 in counter-affidavit dated October 27, 2005 filed by one Satish Kumar Sharma, S.D.M., Bharthana, Etawah, has stated that as the amount of Rs. 1,33,948 as trade tax plus interest accrued over it was outstanding against the petitioner, therefore recovery proceedings were initiated against him. He has also stated that the house of the petitioner is under attachment and the land of the petitioner has been auctioned and sold. He has further stated that since no bidder came forward at the time of auction due to threat issued by the petitioner, the aforesaid land was finally purchased by the District Magistrate himself on behalf of the State after calculating the price of the land as per circular of the Board of Revenue dated August 6, 1976. A sale certificate dated August 26, 1983 issued in favour of the District Magistrate has also been filed as annexure 3 to the aforesaid counter-affidavit. He has also suggested that as still some of the amount remained unpaid, the same has rightly been recovered from the post office accounts of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by one Vinod Singh, the then Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Trade Tax, Bharthana, Etawah, the averments made in the writ petition have not been disputed but it has been contended that as the amount was due against the petitioner the same could have been recovered at any time and the passage of many years in between would not absolve the petitioner of his liability. In rejoinder to the above counter-affidavit the petitioner contends that no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before issuing the letter or order dated August 20, 2004 so as to intimate the amount which had remained due and payable despite attachment and sale of property in the year 1983. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 sworn by R. P. Chaudhary, Tehsildar, Bharthana on February 24, 2010. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that against the recovery certificate for Rs. Another counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 sworn by R. P. Chaudhary, Tehsildar, Bharthana on February 24, 2010. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that against the recovery certificate for Rs. 1,34,793 for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76 an amount of Rs. 845 was paid and it was adjusted against the dues of assessment year 1972-73. Accordingly, recovery of Rs. 1,33,948 remained. In pursuance of it, the petitioner's share in agricultural plot Nos. 539, 213, 214, 228 situate in village Singhpur, Tehsil Bharthana was attached on October 25, 1978 and proceedings for auction were initiated. In spite of various dates fixed, as no prospective bidder came forward, the District Magistrate under rule 285B of the Rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act himself made a bid and got the land in dispute under his title vide order dated February 17, 1982 for a sum of Rs. 9,909 only which has been filed as annexure 3 to the said counter-affidavit. Thereafter efforts were made to lease out the land but it could not be leased out. It is further stated that in response to a query made on August 16, 2004 the Trade Tax Officer vide letter dated August 18, 2004 intimated about the balance of arrears of the tax due and interest thereon payable by the petitioner (annexure 7 to the said affidavit). It was on the basis of the said letter and the recovery certificate issued earlier, directions were issued to the post office, Bharthana, for the payment of the amount due from the accounts of the petitioner with the post office. In the counter-affidavit of Ram Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bharthana dated February 24, 2010 filed in reply to the amendment application of the petitioner, which amendment on being allowed has been incorporated in the writ petition, it has been stated that according to the information given by respondent No. 1 the auction of the petitioner's aforesaid property in pursuance to the recovery proceedings could not take place as no bidder came forward and it could not be leased out either. Since the amount remained outstanding, directions were issued to the post office to attach and make payment from the petitioner's accounts which were with the post office. Since the amount remained outstanding, directions were issued to the post office to attach and make payment from the petitioner's accounts which were with the post office. In the supplementary affidavit sworn by one Ram Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Bharthana, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 dated February 26, 2010, it has been stated that despite attachment and sale of the petitioner's land in favour of the District Magistrate according to the report of the Lekhpal dated February 19, 2010, the land is in actual cultivation of the petitioner. A chart has also been annexed showing that on the demand of Rs. 1,33,948 of trade tax for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 an interest of Rs. 6,09,589 accrued and as such a total of Rs. 7,43,537 became due on August 26, 2004. It has further been shown in the chart that the amount of Rs. 3,36,000 withdrawn from the post office accounts of the petitioner has been adjusted against the principal demand of Rs. 80,322 for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and partly to the tune of Rs. 2,55,678 towards interest accrued on the demand of the aforesaid years. In this way, original demand of Rs. 53,626 for the year 1975-76 with interest amount of Rs. 1,20,638 for the outstanding tax up to 1974-75 and further interest on the outstanding amount of the year 1975-76 to the tune of Rs. 2,33,273 still remains unpaid. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4,43,573 is still payable by the petitioner. The narration of the above facts brings to the forefront that under the impugned recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 only a sum of Rs. 1,34,793.59 was recoverable as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner as the principal amount of trade tax dues for the assessment years 1972-73 to 1975-76. The liability of the said amount is not disputed. The petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 845 which was adjusted in the outstanding dues of the year 1972-73. After aforesaid adjustment the balance principal amount which remained due and recoverable was only Rs. 1,33,948. On the said amount an interest of Rs. 6,09,589 accrued till August 26, 2004 and thus, on the said date the total amount recoverable from the petitioner swelled up to Rs. 7,43,537. A sum of Rs. After aforesaid adjustment the balance principal amount which remained due and recoverable was only Rs. 1,33,948. On the said amount an interest of Rs. 6,09,589 accrued till August 26, 2004 and thus, on the said date the total amount recoverable from the petitioner swelled up to Rs. 7,43,537. A sum of Rs. 3,36,000 has been recovered from the post office accounts of the petitioner, and the balance with further interest still remains recoverable. We have heard Shri R. R. Agarwal for the petitioner and Shri A. C. Tripathi for the respondents. The first and the foremost question which arises for consideration is whether a recovery issued on February 16, 1985 even if it had remained unsatisfied can it be pressed into motion after 19 years and would not be barred by time ? The recovery which was issued against the petitioner was in respect of arrears of sales/trade tax for which no limitation for making the recovery has been prescribed under law. The recovery of the aforesaid amount was initiated against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U.P.Z.A., and L.R. Act and the rules framed thereunder which also does not prescribe any time for making the recovery. Moreover, Crown debts are generally perpetual in nature and the right to recover the same cannot be demolished on the ground of limitation particularly where no limitation is prescribed under the relevant statute. In view of the above, the recovery of the tax dues as arrears of land revenue after 19 years may not be barred by limitation, nonetheless it is important to consider whether the said recovery after such a long lapse of time is legally justified or not. It is well-settled that where no time-limit is prescribed for doing a particular thing, the power to do such a thing had to be exercised within a reasonable period of time and what would be the reasonable period will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. In Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar [2003] 3 SCC 128, the apex court while dealing with the question of limitation in making a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act held that though no limitation is prescribed for making such a reference nevertheless the power has to be exercised within a reasonable period depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In another case of Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy [2003] 7 SCC 667 their Lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing the words "at any time" held that exercise of suo motu power where no time-limit is prescribed depends upon the facts of each case and the power can be exercised within a reasonable time and observed as under : "... Exercise of suo motu power 'at any time' only means that no specific period such as days, months or years are not prescribed reckoning from a particular date. But that does not mean that 'at any time' should be unguided and arbitrary. In this view, 'at any time' must be understood as within a reasonable time depending on the facts and circumstances of each case in the absence of prescribed period of limitation." The above principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the recent case reported in State of A.P. v. Yadagiri Reddy [2009] JT 1 SC 104. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Neeraj Kumar v. Collector, Bulandshahar [2004] 2 UPLBEC 2037 while dealing with a similar controversy in relation to the recovery under the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 has considered the following question : Whether there is any limitation for recovering the sum due as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and if there is none whether recovery can be made within reasonable time or it is open to recover at any point of time ? The Division Bench while answering the above question held that the object of such statutes is to provide speedy recovery of Government dues and that the proceedings for recovery after lapse of nearly 18 years were not within reasonable time and as such became barred by time. In the instant case undisputedly the recovery certificate was issued on February 16, 1985 and the respondents failed to realize the dues immediately thereafter. The respondents apparently slept over their right to recover the arrears of tax dues for comparatively long period of 19 years and woke up all of sudden in the year 2004 by issuing letter to the Deputy Post Master to make the payment from the post office accounts of the petitioner. The respondents apparently slept over their right to recover the arrears of tax dues for comparatively long period of 19 years and woke up all of sudden in the year 2004 by issuing letter to the Deputy Post Master to make the payment from the post office accounts of the petitioner. The record is silent and does not show the manner in which the respondents after the such a long gap of time came to realise that the amount had remained un-recovered and the same can now be recovered through the post office accounts of the petitioner. Such a long silence on part of the respondents must have legitimately led the petitioner to believe that the amount had been paid or treated to have been settled. Generally, the period of recovering dues through a suit is three years as provided in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. Even, in suits relating to immovable property where payment of money is secured against charge upon any immovable property, the limitation of 12 years for instituting a suit has been provided. Thus in no case the limitation for enforcing demand of money or for recovering any dues even if secured by charge on immovable property exceeds 12 years in law. Therefore, legitimately the State is also expected to be vigilant and to make the recovery of its dues from whatever means or manner within the same time-frame and not beyond it. Accordingly, a period of 12 years from the date of issuance of recovery certificate can be construed to be a reasonable period for recovering such dues though not as an absolute rule. Viewed from the above angle, the period of 19 years is certainly not a fair and reasonable time. It is also relevant to note that there is nothing on record to indicate that any information was ever given by the respondents to the petitioner that the demand under the recovery certificate dated December 16, 1985 had remained unsatisfied and that the principal amount sought to be recovered along with interest accrued thereon had swelled to over Rs. 7,00,000 as indicated in the chart annexed with the supplementary affidavit of Ram Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax. 7,00,000 as indicated in the chart annexed with the supplementary affidavit of Ram Singh, Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, where the recovery certificate had remained pending for such a long time, it would have been more appropriate and in consonance with the principles of natural justice to have issued a formal letter to the petitioner informing about the outstanding dues and the calculation of the interest thereon before realizing any amount directly from his post office accounts. This not having been done, the action of the respondents for realizing the aforesaid amount cannot be approved of. In this view of the matter even though the recovery may not have become barred by time but it was certainly unfair, unreasonable and unjust to press for it after a gap of 19 years that too without any prior intimation or notice. Now the question is whether the payment of Rs. 845 and Rs. 3,36,000 satisfies the arrears of tax dues with interest accrued. Admittedly, under the recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 a sum of Rs. 1,34,793 was demanded. The petitioner had paid Rs. 845 and thus only a demand of Rs. 1,33,948 remained. The principal amount of arrears of tax were Rs. 10,200, Rs. 16,992, Rs. 53,430 and Rs. 53,626 for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, respectively. A sum of Rs. 3,36,000 was realized on August 24, 2004. The counter-affidavit dated February 24, 2010 sworn by Sri R. P. Chaudhary, Tehsildar, Bharthana, discloses that the aforesaid sum of Rs. 3,36,000 was adjusted towards the outstanding demands of arrears of tax for the years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 only to the tune of Rs. 80,322 and the balance towards interest. Thus, the principal demand of arrears of tax for the year 1975-76 to the extent of Rs. 53,626 remained intact. The court is at a loss to understand why the amount of Rs. 3,36,000 so realized was not first adjusted towards the principal arrears of tax liability of all the years. There is no justification on record to justify the adjustment of the aforesaid amount partly towards the principal of arrears of tax for some years and partly towards interest accrued when the principal arrears of tax for one of the years had remained unsatisfied. There is no justification on record to justify the adjustment of the aforesaid amount partly towards the principal of arrears of tax for some years and partly towards interest accrued when the principal arrears of tax for one of the years had remained unsatisfied. It is cardinal to note that any amount paid or realized is first to be adjusted towards principal sum due and thereafter towards the interest in the absence of any covenant to the contrary. The respondents have certainly not adopted the above procedure and have also failed to give explanation for deviating from the same. Thus, the adjustment so made is patently faulty. It is worth noticing that on the principal amount of trade tax due, i.e., Rs. 1,34,793 (Rs. 1,33,948 after adjustment of Rs. 845 paid in cash) under the recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 an interest of Rs. 6,90,589 has been added as on August 26, 2004. The respondents in the first place failed to recover the amount due by not taking concrete steps to realise the same within a reasonable time from the date of issuance of the recovery and at the same time have burdened the petitioner with the interest liability many times more the principal amount of tax due. In Hindu Law, the rule of "Damdupat" deals with the debts. According to this age old rule of Hindu Law, the amount of interest recoverable at any one time cannot exceed the principal. This rule may not be in use very effectively but it has not been totally done away with. In fact, legislation in certain States affecting transactions of money lenders, prohibits recovery of interest in excess of the principal amount. The above rule is based upon a sound socio-economic ideology to prevent a situation "once a debtor always a debtor". In an era in which it is necessary to maintain such socio economic equilibrium, the levy or addition of such a high amount of interest exceeding the principal amount originally due cannot be considered to be a healthy practice in the eyes of law. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in charging interest on the unpaid amount for all these years at least after 12 years which we have held to be a reasonable period to recover the amount in the present case. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondents are not justified in charging interest on the unpaid amount for all these years at least after 12 years which we have held to be a reasonable period to recover the amount in the present case. This entitles petitioner to have a clear statement of account of the amount of tax dues; the interest levied thereon; adjustment of the amount paid and realized towards the principal amount; and the calculation of the balance amount, if any. Lastly, the entire emphasis of the petitioner that the recovery stood satisfied with the attachment of agricultural plots of the petitioner and their subsequent auction which ultimately resulted in the transfer of the plots in favour of the collector is totally misconceived. The recovery certificate was issued on December 16, 1985. The attachment of the aforesaid plots and the auction thereof as well as the sale certificate dated August 26, 1983 by which they were transferred in favour of the collector all took place prior to the issuance of the above recovery certificate. The said recovery though under challenge the amount recoverable therein is not disputed. It has not been shown to be illegal in any manner. The liability of the aforesaid tax is also not questioned. Therefore, the presumption is that the recovery certificate dated February 16, 1985 for Rs. 1,34,793 has been issued after taking into account all previous transactions, i.e. of attachment, auction and sale and after adjusting the proceeds thereof. In other words, previous attachment, auction and sale of the lands of the petitioner has nothing to do with the above recovery. According to the above recovery a sum of Rs. 1,34,793 was recoverable as sales tax dues from the petitioner. There is nothing on record to establish that the sum recoverable under the impugned certificate of recovery was deposited by the petitioner or that the said recovery stood satisfied in any way except for the payment of Rs. 845 and the realization of Rs. 3,36,000 from the post office account of the petitioner as described above. The present petitioner Smt. Tara Devi Yadav is the successor of the deceased original petitioner. On its basis an attempt has been made on her behalf to advance an argument that as she has not inherited anything from her husband no recovery can be made from her. 3,36,000 from the post office account of the petitioner as described above. The present petitioner Smt. Tara Devi Yadav is the successor of the deceased original petitioner. On its basis an attempt has been made on her behalf to advance an argument that as she has not inherited anything from her husband no recovery can be made from her. The argument though may be of some substance in view of the analogy of section 50, C.P.C., but can not be appreciated by the court at this stage as there is nothing on record in this regard. Section 50, C.P.C., envisages that the legal representative of the judgment - debtor is liable to satisfy the decree only to the extent of the property of the deceased, which had fallen into his hand. The position of the present petitioner is that of a legal representative of a judgment - debtor and as such cannot be held liable to satisfy the dues of her deceased husband in excess of what she has inherited from him. This aspect of the matter has to be examined by the authorities. In view of the facts and circumstances and the above discussion, we are of the opinion that even though the recovery initiated on February 16, 1985 was not technically barred by limitation yet it was not just and proper to realise any amount from the petitioner after such a long distance of 19 years that too without any intimation of the amount still due and the amount of interest accrued thereon. However, as the amount of tax due had remained unpaid and the petitioner was legally bound to pay the same as there is no time-limit prescribed to recover the same any irregularity in recovering it may not force us to struck it down as a whole, we are not inclined to either quash the recovery dated February 16, 1985 or to issue any mandamus for the refund of the amount so realised but to dispose of the petition with the directions hereinafter which we think would serve the ends of justice : (i) The respondents shall prepare within a month and furnish to the petitioner a complete statement of account showing the principal amount of sale/trade tax dues of each year with interest accrued for each year showing the adjustment of the amount if any paid/deposited or realised first towards the principal amount of tax dues of all the years in question including the amount realized from the sale of property by auction in favour of the collector; (ii) In preparing the statement of account aforesaid no interest on interest accrued shall be charged and further that no interest even on the unpaid principal amount, if any, after 12 years of issuance of recovery certificate shall be levied; (iii) The excess amount if any realised shall be refunded with interest at the same rate at which it has been charged within a period of one month thereafter; (iv) The deficient amount, if any, as per the statement shall be recovered from the petitioner only after affording her any opportunity of hearing and on satisfaction that she has inherited property from her husband in excess of the amount now sought to be recovered as the balance. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.