S. R. Misra, J. - (1.) MANOHAR Lal, petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 4-7-1981 passed by Board of Revenue returning the revision on the ground of jurisdiction and directing the revision to be laid before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow as the same relates to the realisation of arrears of land revenue, by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) THE point arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether a revision arising out of realization of arrears of land revenue in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the ZA and LR Act'), and Rules framed thereunder will lie under the provisions of ZA and LR Act, or under the Land Revenue Act. The facts, as" stated in the petition, in brief are that sales tax amounting to Rs 7784 87 together with 18% interest fell due against the firm Sudershan Oil Mills, Gorakhpur from 1963-64 to 1969-70. There were other partners as well. On account of non-payment, recovery proceeding started as a result whereof , petitioner's house was attached by issuance of Z. A- Form 73-D dated 22-7-1975. Thereafter, petitioner deposited' an amount of Rs. 2291.36P towards interest. Another amount of Rs. 5473.21 together with interest at the rate of 18% remained outstanding and, therefore, pro- clamation in Z.A. Form No. 74 for sale of the attached house was issued on 2-9-1975. The date of auction was fixed as 7-10-1975, which happened to be a holiday for Idul Fitra. Since this was a holiday, the petitioner claimed that no auction could have taken place under Rule 285 (A) of the Rules framed under the UP ZA and L.R. Act. However, the auction took place on 8-10-1975, to which, petitioner alleges, that he did not have any notice or information. The highest bidder, namely, Durga Prasad did not deposit l/4th amount of Rs. 13,000 and, therefore, one Kanhaiya Lal Jaiswal, who had earlier given a bid of Rs. 11,000 moved an application offering Rs. 16,000 behind the back of the petitioner and after completion of auctions proceedings. His offer was accepted. Thereupon, petitioner moved an application under Rule 285-1 for cancellation of the sale 'on various grounds, which was rejected. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision.
(3.) SRI Sashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and the Land Revenue Act. He also strenuously argued on the merits of the case by contending that since the Department had accepted part payment from the petitioner, it was estopped from auctioning the property in question which could not be done without issuing fresh notice and proclamation. The negotiation between the Department and the auction-purchaser was held under the thick veil of secrecy and everything happened after the auction was over. He further urged that recovery of arrears as laud revenue is regulated by Section 279 of the UA ZA and LR Act and Rules 281 to 285 of the Rules framed thereunder. Rule 285-E is analogous to order XXI Rule 85 CPC. The view of the Board of Revenue that since the dispute arises out of recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue, the provisions of Land Revenue Act will be applicable, is erroneous in law. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order of the Board of Revenue on various grounds. Since the case is fully covered by Full Bench decision of the this Court, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respondents have no substance and, therefore; they are not being discussed;