ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a relief of quashing notices of recovery, dated 14.9.1992 (Annexure P-5), 10.12.1992 (Annexure P-6) and 6.11.2005 (Annexure P-7). 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was awarded a contract for constructing a building in the year 1986. The work allotted to the petitioner was required to be completed in the year 1989. The dispute arose on account of the fact when the work was not completed within the stipulated period. The respondents consequently terminated the contract sometime in the year 1989-1990 and thereafter issued the impugned notices to the petitioner on 14.9.1992 (Annexure P-5) and on 10.12.1992 (Annexure P-6). As the amount was not deposited by the petitioner, proceedings under the provisions the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was initiated against the petitioner and Revenue Recovery Certificate under section 146 of the Code, Annexure P-7, was issued to the petitioner on 6.11.2005, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agreement between the parties provides for a specific procedure for terminating the contract under clause 3 and also provided for resolution of dispute by the higher authorities and thereafter for taking up arbitration proceedings under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. It is submitted that the authorities did not follow the procedure contained in clause 3 of the agreement and the contract was terminated without giving any notice or opportunity to the petitioner. It is further stated that the authorities did not give another notices to the petitioner before determining the amount to be recovered from the petitioner and in such circumstances, the impugned action of the respondent/authorities is in violation of the provisions for the natural justice, clause 3 of the agreement and the procedure prescribed and therefore the same deserves to be quashed. 4. 4. The learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents, per contra, submits that as the petitioner was not executing the work in accordance with the agreement and undertaking further construction in accordance therewith, therefore, the respondent/authorities gave repeated reminders to the petitioner asking him to complete the construction work in the year 1988 and 1989 in response to which the petitioner had filed replies as is evident from a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner himself, Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-3 which are the responses submitted by the petitioner to the letters issued by the authorities on 14.5.1989 and 16.7.1990 etc. It is submitted that thereafter the authorities terminated the contract and informed the petitioner that the amount and expenses incurred by the State for completion of the contract would be recovered from the petitioner pursuant to which the petitioner had filed a representation, Annexure P-2, before the authorities on 25.5.1991, in response to which the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 6.6.1991, Annexure P-3 that the petitioner’s contract has been terminated and that as no work was undertaken by the petitioner for a considerable period of time, therefore, preparation of a final bill was not possible and that the petitioner would be liable to reimburse the expenses incurred by the State towards the completion of contract. 5. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter again approached the authorities on 21.10.1991 objecting to the communication dated 6.6.1991 but did not take up any proceedings to resolve the dispute by invoking the resolution clause or the arbitration clause and therefore the authorities issued the impugned notices to the petitioner on 14.9.1992 (Annexure P-5) and on 10.12.1992 (Annexure P-6) seeking the recovery of extra expenses incurred by the authorities for completion of the contract and thereafter revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner by issuing the Revenue Recovery Certificate, dated 6.11.2005. 6. 6. It is submitted by the respondents that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case it is apparent that the petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches inasmuch as the petitioner, in spite of having full knowledge of the fact that the contract has been terminated in the year 1990-91, did not take up proceedings against the same or assail the order of termination and, therefore, the issue of termination of contract raised by the petitioner cannot be permitted to be raised in the present petition. It is further contended that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner on 14.9.1992 and 10.12.1992 were also not assailed or challenged by the petitioner before any authority, Tribunal or Court. It is submitted that the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner is in accordance with clause 3 of the contract which empowers the authorities to recover the excess amount incurred by them for completion of the work allotted to the petitioner and, therefore, no fault can be found in the same. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the amount has been unilaterally quantified which is not permissible in law and that while the initial notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992 and Annexure P-6, dated 10.12.1992 were for recovery of Rs. 2,75,520/-, the Revenue Recovery Certificate, Annexure P-7, dated 6.11.1995, is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,03,699/- which was not permissible. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and after perusing the record, it is observed that the fact that the contract of the petitioner had been terminated, was well within the knowledge of the petitioner as is evident from the documents, Annexures P-2, P-3 and P-4, filed by the petitioner himself. It is also evident from a perusal of the relief clause contained in the petition that the petitioner has not assailed the termination or cancellation of the contract but has filed this petition assailing only the recovery notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992, Annexure P-6, dated 10.12.1992 and the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 6.11.2005, Annexure P-7. It is also evident from a perusal of the relief clause contained in the petition that the petitioner has not assailed the termination or cancellation of the contract but has filed this petition assailing only the recovery notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992, Annexure P-6, dated 10.12.1992 and the Revenue Recovery Certificate dated 6.11.2005, Annexure P-7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed fact, this Court is not required to look into or examine the validity of the termination of the contract as the same has not been challenged and is not the subject matter before this Court in the present petition or between the parties. 9. It is further clear that the notices, Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 were issued to the petitioner on 14.9.1992 and 10.12.1992, respectively, but the petitioner did not assail the aforesaid Revenue Recovery Certificate before any authority for a considerable long period of time. In fact, there is no explanation acceptable or otherwise in the petition for the long lapse of time and the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court against the recovery notices issued in the year 1992. What was the petitioner doing during this period is not known. In fact, the petition has been filed before this Court only on receipt of the Revenue Recovery Certificate in the year 2005 i.e. after a long lapse of 13 years from the date of issuance of the recovery notices Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6, dated 14.9.1992 and 10.12.1992, respectively. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case which are evident from a perusal of the record itself, it is clear that there is unexplained and extreme delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in challenging the action of the respondents including the challenge to the recovery notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992 and Annexure P-6 dated 10.12.1992. As the petition filed by the petitioner suffers from delay and laches as far as challenge to the action of the respondents in cancelling the contract (which has been otherwise attained finality in the absence of challenge) and the notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992 and Annexure P-6 dated 10.12.1992, the same is dismissed to that extent. 11. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has raised a dispute regarding the quantum sought to be recovered from the petitioner in the Revenue Recovery Certificate. 11. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has raised a dispute regarding the quantum sought to be recovered from the petitioner in the Revenue Recovery Certificate. It is submitted that the explanation given by the respondents in the return regarding inflation of the amount of Rs. 2,75,520/- to Rs. 4,03,699/- is unexplained. As the matter is pending before the recovery officer, the issue as to thequantum can be raised before the said authorities. In the circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the Revenue Recovery Certificate, Annexure P-7, dated 6.11.2005 as the petitioner would have full liberty and opportunity to raise these issues before the recovery officer in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, while the petition filed by the petitioner, as far as it relates to the termination of the contract and the recovery notices, Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992 and Annexure P-6 dated 10.12.1992, stands dismissed on account of delay and laches, the petitioner is granted liberty to take up the issues regarding the difference in the quantum between the notices Annexure P-5, dated 14.9.1992 Annexure P-6, dated 10.12.1992 and the Revenue Recovery Certificate, dated 6.11.2005, Annexure P-7, in accordance with law before the recovery officer. It goes without saying that in case, the petitioner does so within a period of four weeks from today, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid liberty the petition filed by the petitioner is partly dismissed and partly disposed of in terms of the observations made above. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.