SHEO BARAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR FATEHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Sheo Baran Singh Petitioner has challenged the validity of the recovery proceedings and the proposed auction sale of his agricultural land by the Sub -Divisional, Officer Fatehpur.

(2.) THE Petitioner is an agriculturist having his holdings in village Teliyani, district Fetehpur. In March, 1962, he obtained Taqabi loan Rs. 5,000/ -under the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883 (Act No. XIX of 1883). The Petitioner pledged one -fourth share of his agricultural land as contained in plot Nos. 49, 50, 56 and 73 of Khata No. 64, as security for the repayment of the loan. According to the Petitioner, he could not repay the loan in time on account of natural calamity. Since the Petitioner fell into arrears the Collector, Fetehpur, took steps for recovery of the Taqabi dues as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner. On 13 -1 -1972 a number of agricultural plots, belonging to the Petitioner included in Khatas Nos. 20, 21, 66 and 68 of village Telivani were attached under Section 289 read with Section 279 (d) and (f) of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950. In all, the Petitioner's land, having an area of 26 bighas 14 biswas and 10.5 biswansis, was placed under attachment for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 6791.34 P. The Collector, after obtaining the permission from the Commissioner, fixed 13 -3 -1975 for the sale of the attached plots. The Petitioner, thereupon, filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the recovery proceedings and the proposed auction sale.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel, then, urged that under the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the 1950 Act" the Collector, in the first instance, must proceed against the land for the benefit of which loan had been obtained and only thereafter he could proceed against the Petitioner's other land which was neither pledged nor given in security for the loan. He referred to the sequence of mode laid down in Sections 279 and 286 to support his contention that unless the Collector exhausted process against the land for the benefit of which loan was taken, he had no authority in law to proceed against the Petitioner's other immovable property.