JUDGMENT As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, a checking was made in the premises of the petitioner on 12.10.2010. Theft of electricity was allegedly deducted. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1 lac as compounding fee on the said date, i.e., 12.10.2008. 2. An amount of Rs. 1,19,585/- was assessed as payable by the petitioner on account of the alleged theft. Accordingly, a Recovery Certificate dated 3.11.2010 was sent by the respondent no.2 to the Collector Allahabad (respondent no.3). 3. However, in the mean-time, on Representation made by the petitioner, the amount payable by the petitioner, as per the assessment on account of the alleged theft, was reduced to Rs. 39,591/-. The said amount of Rs. 39,591 was deposited by the petitioner on 29.12.2010. Copies of the documents in this regard have been filed as part of Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. 4. In view of the deposit made by the petitioner in respect of the amount assessed by the respondent no.2 on account of the alleged theft of electricity after considering the Representation made by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 sent a Communication dated 27.1.2011 (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) to the Additional District Magistrate (Finance), Allahabad withdrawing the Recovery Certificate dated 3.11.2010 for Rs. 1,19,585/- sent by the respondent no.2 to the Collector Allahabad (respondent no.3). 5. However, pursuant to the said Communication dated 27.1.2011, the Revenue Authorities declined to return the Recovery Certificate on the ground that the collection charges at the rate of 10% were yet to be realized from the petitioner, as is evident from the Noting dated 10.2.2011, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition. 6. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is regarding the collection charges which are sought to be realized from the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid recovery. 7. We have heard Shri D.V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.K. Srivastava, holding brief for Shri Anubhav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 8. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the Recovery Certificate was sent by the respondent nos. 2 to the Collector, Allahabad (respondent no.3) on 3.11.2010. 9. 1 and 2, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. 8. From the narration of the facts above, it is evident that the Recovery Certificate was sent by the respondent nos. 2 to the Collector, Allahabad (respondent no.3) on 3.11.2010. 9. However, as the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner was reduced and such reduced amount was deposited by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 sent the aforesaid Communication dated 27.1.2011 withdrawing the Recovery Certificate. 10. It will thus be seen that the proceedings for making recovery against the petitioner as arrears of land revenue had been set in motion by issuance of the Recovery Certificate on 3.11.2010. 11. However, before anything concrete could be done in regard to such Recovery, the respondent no. 2 sent the Communication dated 27.1.2011 withdrawing the Recovery Certificate. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved in case the petitioner is required to deposit 50% of the collection charges which are sought to be realized from the petitioner. 13.We accordingly dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: (1) Within two months from today, the petitioner will deposit 50% of the Collection Charges with the respondent no.3. (2) The recovery proceedings against the petitioner will remain stayed for a period of two months from today. In case, the amount is deposited by the petitioner as mentioned in Condition No.1 above, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner will be dropped. (3) In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner in making the deposit as mentioned in Condition No.1 above, this order will stand automatically vacated and it will become open to the concerned respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.