AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Saharanpur, on the 7th of August, 1968 (Annexure 3) the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Di vision dated 16-1-1970 (Annexure 5) and the order dated 30-12-1970 (Annexure 13) passed by the Board of Revenue, dismiss ing the petitioner's objections, appeal and revision respectively against attachment of its properties enumerated in the peti tion. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties (sic) (to refrain?) from selling the attached properties or from confirming the auction sale which already took place on 3-11-1970.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is the tenure-holder of lands situate in two villages in district Saharanpur as mentioned in the petition. The Company fell in arrears of agricultural tax and land revenue amounting to Rs. 32, 000 and odd. In order to realise the agricultural tax and land revenue, at first standing crops of the petitioner were at tached on 2-4-1968 but as the value of the crops as estimated by the opposite par ties w.as found to be insufficient to make good the dues a notice was served res training the petitioner from transferring its properties. The notice is dated 5-4-1968 and has been filed as Annexure 1 to this petition. Thereafter both movable and immovable properties of the peti tioner were attached on 19-4-1968. These properties were enumerated in the notice (Annexure 1). It may also be mentioned that the movable and immovable proper ties which were attached did not include the land or the holdings in the two vil lages of which the petitioner is the tenure holder. The petitioner filed objections be fore the Additional Collector which were rejected by the order filed as Annexure 3. Thereafter, the petitioner went up in ap peal to the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the same by his order dated 16-1-1970 filed as Annexure 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application before the State .Government which was transferred to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue dismissed it by its order dated 30-12-1970 (Annexure 13). The Board of Revenue also rejected the petitioner's prayer for stay of the propos ed auction sale. Thereafter the properties were auctioned on 3-11-1970, but the con firmation of the sale was stayed by this Court till the disposal of this writ peti tion.

(3.) A perusal of Section 279 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act, 1950 will show that land re venue could be recovered by any one or more of the processes enumerated as clauses (a) to (g). As has been pointed out, the proviso to Section 22 of the U. P. Act No. XII of 1963 lays down that the mode of realisation as laid down in clau ses (c) and (f) of Section 279 shall not be resorted to unless the other modes enu merated in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, had been ex hausted. The different clauses from (a) to (g) of Section 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are as follows:-