Abhinava Upadhya, J.— Heard Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no.1,2,3 and 4 and Sri J.P.Singh, learned counsel for the Zila Panchayat-respondent no.5. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate dated 11.5.2012 and citation dated 19.5.2012 filed as Annexures-1 and 3 respectively with the following prayers: i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 11.5.2012 and the citation dated 19.5.2012 issued by the Tehsildar, Kushi Nagar (Annexure Nos. 1 and 3 respectively to the writ petition). ii)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned recovery certificate dated 11.5.2012 and the citation dated 19.5.2012 issued by the Tehsildar, Kushi Nagar. iii)issue a writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present circumstances of this case. iv) Award cost of the instant writ petition in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner alleges himself to be a Government Contractor. It is claimed that the tenders were invited by the Upper Mukhya Adhikari, Kushinagar in February-March, 2002 for construction of a RCC Culvert measuring 3x6 meters across Bedu part Bintoli-Birwat road on old Basi river. The petitioner also submitted his tender for the aforesaid construction which was accepted and upon an agreement between the petitioner and the respondents Upper Mukhya Adhikari and Assistant Engineer, Zila Panchayat, Kushinagar, the petitioner was awarded contract for construction of the aforesaid bridge/culvert which was scheduled to be completed by December, 2003. The petitioner claims that due to delay in disbursement of fund, the said construction could not be completed within the time agreed upon. However, the same was completed in 2004 and was handed over to the Zila Panchayat. It is claimed that due to heavy rainfall and flood in the river said to be attributary of Narayani river, the span of the culvert sank which caused a curve in the slab. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the damage to culvert was caused due to the faulty design of the culvert prepared by the Engineers and not due to sub-standard material used in the construction by the petitioner. The petitioner was only responsible for the construction upon the design prepared by the authorities. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the damage to culvert was caused due to the faulty design of the culvert prepared by the Engineers and not due to sub-standard material used in the construction by the petitioner. The petitioner was only responsible for the construction upon the design prepared by the authorities. It is submitted that due to such damage to the culvert, without affording any opportunity a recovery certificate to the tune of Rs. 7,82,915/- was issued on 11.5.2012 and consequently recovery citation dated 19.5.2012 was slapped upon the petitioner. It is claimed that since the petitioner was not responsible for the damage to the culvert the recovery certificate and the citation is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further assailed the recovery on the ground that the said recovery cannot be proceeded with as arrears of land revenue. It is also stated that the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (in short the Act of 1972) will also not be applicable for the purposes of recovery of damages from the petitioner for the collapse of the culvert. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri J.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Zila Panchayat have countered the claim of the petitioner stating that the petitioner is liable for the damages as per the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents which is filed a Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.5 and the President, Zila Panchayat as well as the District Magistrate were fully empowered to recover the aforesaid amount. According to the learned Standing Counsel, a contract was entered into by the authorities with the petitioner and the construction was to commence from 2002 and completed culvert was to be handed over by the petitioner to the Zila Panchayat by December, 2003. The respondents have relied upon various documents which is in the nature of correspondence with the petitioner and the authorities to suggest that the construction was not completed by the petitioner within the time prescribed or even by 2004 as claimed by the petitioner. As per agreement only on this count the petitioner is liable for penal consequences which is in the shape of impugned recovery. It is further submitted that from the own showing of the petitioner, the construction could not be completed within time. As per agreement only on this count the petitioner is liable for penal consequences which is in the shape of impugned recovery. It is further submitted that from the own showing of the petitioner, the construction could not be completed within time. However, in the month of June, 2007 culvert/bridge was handed over to the Zila Panchayat and in the month of July, 2007 the pillars sank completely damaging the culvert causing inconvenience to the public and pecuniary loss to the State Government which resulted in question being asked in the Assembly. Pursuant thereof the District Magistrate wrote to the State Government bringing to its notice the fact that the newly constructed bridge/culvert collapsed within one month from the date of completion vide letter dated 11.8.2010 and the State Government thereafter directed the Technical Audit Cell (in short the TAC) to conduct a detailed enquiry. The TAC submitted its report finding the design as well as the construction of the bridge to be faulty holding the Engineer as well as the Contractor-petitioner responsible for the collapse. Considering the aforesaid report and relying on the same, the State Government vide its letter dated 18.4.2012 directed the District Magistrate, Kushinagar to recover half of the amount from the contractor-petitioner spent on the construction of the aforesaid culvert which comes to Rs. 7,82,915/- and the remaining from the Engineers who had prepared its structural design. The District Collector thereafter issued recovery certificate and pursuant thereto the citation has been issued which is totally justified and in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, recovery has been effected on the basis of the report of the TAC and the order of the State Government, contained in Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit and the petitioner having not assailed the TAC report as well as the order of the State Government, recovery itself cannot be set-aside as the same is in pursuance of the aforesaid report and the order of the Government. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the writ petition, counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties. From the facts of the case, it bears out undisputably that the petitioner was responsible for the construction of the culvert and he was to complete work by December, 2003. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the writ petition, counter affidavits and the rejoinder affidavits filed by the parties. From the facts of the case, it bears out undisputably that the petitioner was responsible for the construction of the culvert and he was to complete work by December, 2003. It is undisputable that the construction was finally completed in June, 2007. It is also undisputable that in the month of July, 2007, i.e., within one month from the date of construction, the bridge collapsed. The expert body, i.e., TAC made an inspection of the bridge and has given detailed report holding therein that the design of the bridge as well as the construction of the bridge was sub standard which caused the bridge collapse within one month from its construction. Upon these undisputed facts, the petitioner cannot absolve himself of the responsibility only on the ground that as per TAC report since the design of the bridge was faulty and also because the river was in spate and due to heavy flooding the bridge collapsed. It is a matter of common knowledge that flooding in river is an annual feature and happens every year. When the bridge is constructed, this factor is always borne in mind therefore, the plea that since the river flooded, the bridge collapsed, cannot be accepted. Further more, the liability has been fastened upon the petitioner on account of the conclusion and the findings of TAC in its report and upon the direction of the State Government. Admittedly, the aforesaid report as well as the order of the State Government dated 18.4.2012 has not been challenged by the petitioner. As such, there is no ground for setting aside the recovery certificate and the citation dated 18.4.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assailed the recovery certificate and the citation on the ground that the same cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue in view of the provisions of Sections 277, 278, 279, 280, 281 and 282 of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the UPZA&LR Act) and Section 3 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. Learned Standing Counsel, however, has drawn our attention to The United Provinces Special Powers Act, 1932 (in short the Act of 1932) to assert that damages can be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the said Act which is still applicable. Section 4 of the Act of 1932 is quoted here-in-below: "4. Power to Collect an arrear of a liability as an arrear of land revenue.- (1) Any person to whom an arrear of a liability is due may apply in writing to the Collector to realize it and the Collector shall, after satisfying himself that the amount claimed is due, proceed to recover it as an arrear of land revenue, in accordance with law applicable to the recovery of arrears of land revenue in the area concerned. (2)Nothing in this section shall prevent any person to whom an arrear of a liability is due from recovering it in accordance with the law applicable to the recovery of such arrear." Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that in view of Section 1 of sub-section (2) this provision has not been made applicable in Kushinagar, therefore, the said Act will not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Section 1 of sub-section (2) of the Act is quoted herein below: "1(2) This Section and Section 2 shall extend to the whole of Uttar Pradesh and the State Government may by notification in the official Gazettee extend all or any of the remaining sections to any district or to any part of a district in Uttar Pradesh. Notification No. 332-D/VII-B-551-1954, dated May 10, 1954.- In exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the U.P. Special Powers Act, 1932 (Act XIV of 1932), the Governor is pleased to extend all the remaining sections of the said Act, namely, Sections 3 to 14, to the following district of Uttar Pradesh with effect the date of this Notification: The said Act has been made applicable to 31 Districts as per Notification dated May 10, 1954. The District Deoria has been mentioned at Serial No. 19. Presently, the new District Kushi Nagar has always been a part of District Deoria and has only recently been made a separate District. In such circumstances, the assertion of the petitioner that the said Act is not applicable, cannot be accepted. The District Deoria has been mentioned at Serial No. 19. Presently, the new District Kushi Nagar has always been a part of District Deoria and has only recently been made a separate District. In such circumstances, the assertion of the petitioner that the said Act is not applicable, cannot be accepted. That apart, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Beedha Singh Vs. District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Mathura and others reported in 1986 ALJ. 616 wherein this Court while interpreting the provisions of the U.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1966, Section 95-A(1) of the Act has held that prior to proceeding with the recovery, opportunity is necessarily to be given. Similar view has been held by another Division Bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Section 173 (A) of the Municipalities Act, 1916. In the case of Ram Silas Tibrewal Vs. Chairman Municipal Board, Titri Bazar, 1998 JIR 818 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of S.K.Bhargava Vs. Collector, Chandigarh, 1998 AIR (SC) 2885, while interpreting Section 3 of the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, in paragraph-9 it has been held as under: "In our opinion, even though Section 3 does not expressly provide for an opportunity being given to the alleged defaulter to explain as to whether any amount is due or not but in view of the nature of the said provision, the principles of natural justice must be read into it. The requirement of determination of the sum due by the Managing Director must be regarded as providing for the Managing Director hearing the alleged defaulter before coming to the conclusion as to what is the sum due. The very use of the words `determine' and `sum due' implies that there may be a lis between the parties and they have to be heard before a final conclusion is arrived at by the Managing Director. It is not a mere claim of the Corporation which is forwarded to the Collector for realisation, but it is the `sum due' as determined by the Managing Director which alone is recoverable. As already observed, this determination cannot be done without notice to the alleged defaulter. " No exception can be had to the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. As already observed, this determination cannot be done without notice to the alleged defaulter. " No exception can be had to the views expressed in the aforesaid decisions. However, we can also not ignore the facts that the aforesaid recovery has been initiated pursuant to a report of the TAC which was within the knowledge of the petitioner as well as the order of the State Government and that having not been assailed, merely in pursuance thereof recovery citation cannot be quashed. In our considered view, there does not appear any error in the recovery proceedings which may call for any interference by this Court. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any action on the part of the District Magistrate or the State Government, it is always open for the petitioner to represent the matter before the authorities for the redressal of its grievance. With the liberty aforesaid, we decline to interfere and the writ petition is, thus, dismissed. _____________