WPMS No. 345 of 2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State. It transpires that the petitioners took a loan for purchase of a truck and entered into an agreement with respondent No.2. The petitioners could not repay the loan and, accordingly, the vehicle was seized and was auctioned. It transpires that the petitioners raised a dispute in terms of the agreement under the Arbitration clause and an award was passed in the year 2007 directing the petitioners to pay the balance amount. Since the same was not paid, recovery proceedings were initiated and, eventually, a citation has been issued by the Tehsildar u/S 280 of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said citation, has filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no citation could be issued under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act and the award, if it has to be executed, could only be done through the process of the Court and not otherwise. Necessary details as to whether the award which was made in Chennai and the subsequent recovery certificate which has been sent has been done through the process of the Court or otherwise is not clear. Without going into the veracity as to whether the recovery certificate could be issued or not under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly the amount is liable to be paid by the petitioners which is not disputed by him. Once this fact is clear, then irrespective of the fact that the respondents have erroneously issued a recovery certificate, the same does not entitled the petitioners to file a writ of certiorari, in as much as, the Court is of the opinion that equity is not in his favour. It is not sufficient for the petitioners to allege that the recovery is illegal. The petitioners are further required to address that equity is also in their favour. Since the amount is admitted to be due to be paid by the petitioners, equity is not in their favour. The writ petition is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 08.03.2011 Shiv