K.N. Singh, J. - (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. Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the Collector should have, in the first instance, proceeded against the land for the benefit of which the loan was granted he could not proceed against the Petitioner's other land, which was neither pledged nor given in security for the repayment of the loan. He placed reliance on Section 7(1)(c) of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883. We find no merit in the contention. Admittedly, the Petitioner had failed to repay the loan and he had become a defaulter and the amount of loan was recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue. Section 7 of the Land Improvement Loans Act, 1883, hereinafter referred to as "the 1883 Act" provides for recovery of loans. Sub -Section (1) lays down that loans granted under this Act, shall, when they become due, be recoverable by the Collector in all or any of the modes prescribed therein. Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) prescribe the modes. Clause (a) lays down that the loan shall be recoverable by the Collector from the borrower as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him ; Clause (b) makes the loan recoverable from surety (if any) as if they were arrears of land revenue due by him ; Clause (c) provides for the recovery of loan out of the land for the benefit of which the loan has been granted -as if the same was arrears of land revenue due in respect of that land and Clause (d) provides for the recovery of loan out of the property comprised in the collateral security. The Collector is empowered to follow any of the aforesaid tour modes in making recovery of the loan. No order of sequence in following the modes is prescribed. The use of the expression "in all or any of the following modes" indicates the legislative intent that the Collector is free to follow any of the four modes prescribed under Sub -Section (1) of Section 7 and it is not necessary for him to exhaust the various modes of recovery in any particular sequence. This conclusion is fortified by Sub -Section (3) of Section 7 which confers discretion on the Collector to determine the order in which he may resort to the mode of recovery permitted by it. The Collector is invested with wide powers to follow any of the four modes in any sequence as he may think fit. The Collector is free to proceed against the borrower treating him to be defaulter and in that process he is entitled to proceed against the property of the borrower other than the land for the benefit of which loan may have been granted.
(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.;