JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 8 of the Haryana Agriculture Credit Operation and Miscellaneous Provision (Bank) Act, 1973 (in short ‘the Act’) on 13.5.2014, whereby the present petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,755/- along with interest as per agreed terms. 2. The petitioner availed loan of Rs.3 lakh for agriculture purposes. Registered mortgage deed was executed on 26.9.2007, whereby land measuring 24 kanal was mortgaged in favour of the Bank. Since the petitioner did not repay the amount, the Bank sought to recover the amount of Rs.3,00,755 as on 31.3.2009. The petitioner appeared before the Prescribed Authority and filed her written statement. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Prescribed Authority passed an order on 13.5.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments; firstly that the application under Section 8 of the Act is barred by limitation as the same has been filed after three years of the execution of mortgage deed. It is also argued that no notice was served upon the petitioner before the demand of recovery was raised against the petitioner. 4. We do not find any merit in both the arguments. The Act is a special Act enacted by the State to give relief to the agriculturists. The Limitation Act has not been made applicable to the proceedings under the aforesaid Act. Since the mortgage has been created by the petitioner, the Bank is competent to invoke the provisions of Section 8 of the Act to enforce its dues against the mortgaged property in summary manner in terms of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act reads as under :- “8. Since the mortgage has been created by the petitioner, the Bank is competent to invoke the provisions of Section 8 of the Act to enforce its dues against the mortgaged property in summary manner in terms of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act reads as under :- “8. (1) An official of the State Government notified by the State Government as the prescribed authority for the purpose of this section may, on the application of a bank, make an order against any agriculturist or his heir or legal representative, directing the payment of any sum due to the bank on account of financial assistance availed of by the agriculturist, by the sale of any land or any interest therein upon which the payment of such money is charged or mortgaged : Provided that no order shall be made by the prescribed authority under this section for the sale of any land or any interest therein or any other immovable property upon which the payment of money is charged or mortgaged unless the agriculturist or the heir or legal representative of the agriculturist as the case may be, has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amounts due. (2) Every order passed by the prescribed authority under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed in the same manner as a decree of such court.” 5. In terms of provisions of Section 8 of the Act, the application filed by the Bank cannot be said to be barred by limitation as no limitation is prescribed under Section 8 of the Act to initiate recovery proceedings against the defaulter. 6. In respect of the second argument, a perusal of the order shows that the respondent has appeared before the Prescribed Authority on 7.8.2013 and filed written statement. Infact, the written statement filed by the petitioner has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure-P-2 with the writ petition as well. Therefore, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Act was not followed or that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority suffers from denial of natural justice. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————