R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order passed by Board of Revenue setting aside sale of building and. land in favour of petitioner, in auction held for recovery of loan under Land Revenue Act. It is admitted that opposite party No. 3 entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 2, and in pursuance of it loan of Rs. 1,14,000/- was advanced for industrial purposes,. As this amount was not paid the property pledged with Corporation, namely, building and land, was auctioned and it was purchased by petitioner on 7-3-75 for Rs. 21,000/- and the sale was confirmed on 7-8-75. Out of this expenses, towards sale etc., were deducted and the balance of Rs. 20,968.50 was remitted by Tahsildar to the Corporation in Sept., 1976 and it was received in Oct., 1976. The Corporation filed an application on 7th March, 1976 for setting aside of sale for variety of reasons which was contested by petitioner. It was dismissed by Commissioner on 2nd Feb., 1976 as it was barred by time. It was also held that there appeared to be no irregularity or illegality in sale. In revision the Board of Revenue held that Corporation having come to know of sale on 7-3-75 the delay of two days only was negligible and it was unjust to expect that objection could have been filed within 30 days of auction sale. It further found that entire sale proceedings were illegal because land being Bhumidhari its auction could be held under Z. A. Act only. The Board further observed that as it was setting aside order of Commissioner on legal grounds it was not considering the irregularity and illegality in sale.
(2.) Both these findings have been challenged by the learned counsel for petitioner. As regards limitation it is well settled that even in those cases where it is to be calculated from the date of order it means the date of communication of order (see Raja Harish Chandra v. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1961 SC 1500) : (1961 All LJ 650) . But the order on applicability of Z. A. Act appears to be manifestly erroneous. Sub-sec. (3) was added to S. 143 by U. P. Amending Act, 1978. It reads as under: "Where a Bhumidhar with transferable rights has been granted, before or after the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1978, any loan by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation or by any other Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government, on the security of any land held by such Bhumidhar, the provisions of this Chapter (other than this section) shall cease to apply to such Bhumidhar with respect to such land and he shall thereupon be governed in the matter of dissolution of the land by personal law to which he is subject." As loan was taken from Financial Corporation, a Corporation owned and controlled by State Government, and the land pledged was Bhumidhar with transferable rights the provisions of Chap. VIII became inapplicable to it. The land no more remained tenancy land it ceased to be Bhumidhari. This shall be clear if the other two sub-sections are looked into. Under them if any land as used for industrial purpose and a declaration is granted by the Assistant Collector then provisions of Chap. VIII cease to apply and succession to it is governed by personal law meaning thereby that such land falls beyond the purview of Z. A. Act. The result is the same in respect of land covered under sub-section (3) provided loan is taken on it. It was urged by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that this amendment was not retrospective and as the agreement was entered prior to 1978 this sub-section was inapplicable. The argument does not appear to be sound as the words, before or after the commencement of U. P. Land Laws Ordinance Act leave no scope for argument. The provision is applicable to' loan taken on bhumidhari land with transferable right even before the Act came into force. The same conclusion is reached if sub-section (14) of Section 2 is examined. It defines land as under: "Land" except in Sections 109, 143 and 144 and Chap. VII means land held or occupied for purposes connected with, agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming." Land which is used for industrial purposes and is covered under section 143 (3) ceased to be land within meaning of this subsection therefore provisions of Z. A. Act became inapplicable. It is argued by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that a person who became bhumidhar under section 18 continues to be so unless his rights are' extinguished under Section 191. The argument is off the mark. The question is whether provisions of Z. A. Act or Land Revenue Act do not apply; there is no other method or manner of realisation except by method provided under Land. Revenue Act. What has therefore to be seen is whether provisions of Z. A. Act apply to land which for one or the other reason ceases to be Bhumidhari or to which provisions of Z. A. Act do not apply. The extinction of Bhumidhari interest is different from non-applicability of Z. A. Act to any land. Chap. X of Z. A. Act deals with Land Revenue. It applies to land held by a person who is or is deemed to be bhumidhar. It cannot apply to a-person who is not bhumidhar or the land' is such which does not come within the definition of sub-section 14 of Section 2. As seen above a person who obtains loan from Financial Corporation ceases to be a bhumidhar and the land is also not land for purposes of Z. A. Act. In such circumstances it is difficult to agree that provisions of Z. A. Act can be applied for recovery of loan. The Board of Revenue therefore committed manifest error in recording a finding that proceedings-taken under Land Revenue Act were irregular and illegal.
(3.) In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Board of Revenue is quashed. The Board' is further directed to decide the claim of Corporation on merits. The petitioner shall be entitled to Its costs. Petition allowed.;