- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In this case arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 24-7-2007. Order of the said date passed on the order sheet is quoted below : "heard learned Counsel for the parties. Judgment Reserved. In spite of orders dated 13-1-2006 and 13-7-2006 learned Counsel for the petitioner has not informed the Court regarding compliance of condition attached with the interim order dated 5-5-1981. It is, therefore, clear that the said condition has not been complied with. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2 auction purchaser, states that auction took place on 25-3-1969 and it was confirmed on 4-10-1982, as condition attached with the interim order dated 5-5-1981 passed in this writ petition was not complied with. The main point to be decided is regarding applicability of Section 286 (2) of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act which was amended with effect from 1-9-1969 i. e. after about six months of auction sale. Through amendment of September 1969, it was provided that even Sirdari right could be auctioned in realization of dues. "
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 9-3-1981 passed by Board of Revenue U. P. Allahabad in Revision No. 127 of 1973-74, Jeet Narain v. Surendra & Anr. The said revision was directed against order of Commissioner, Gorakhpur dated 17-11-2003. Agricultural holding of Haridwar Dubey father of the petitioners was auctioned for realisation of income tax dues certified to be recoverable like arrears of land revenue. The auction took place on 25-3- 1969. Sri Dubey the tenure-holder filed objection under Rule 285-I of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Rules. The objections were allowed by the Commissioner on 17-11-1973 on the ground that the land which was sold through auction (or part thereof) was Sirdari land at the time of auction hence auction was illegal. Jeet Narain auction purchaser respondent No. 2 filed revision before the Board of Revenue, against the said order. One of the points raised before the Board of Revenue was regarding maintainability of revision. Board of revenue held the revision to be maintainable under Section 333 of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act. The Board of Revenue allowed the revision on the ground that even though on the date of auction (25-3-1969) Sirdari rights in agricultural land were not transferable however by virtue of amendment in Section 286 (2) of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act which came into effect from 1-9-1969 Sirdari land was also liable to be auctioned. Before the Board of Revenue as well as this Court an authority reported in Inayat Ali v. State, 1967 ALJ 790, was cited. In the said authority, it was held that as under Section 153 (1) of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act interest of Sirdar was not transferable hence Sirdari land could not be auctioned in realisation of arrears of land revenue. Board of Revenue referred to a judgment of this Court given in Second Appeal No. 2487 of 1964, Gopal & Anr. v. Union of India. Unfortunately the date of decision of the said appeal is not mentioned in the judgment of the Board of Revenue, hence file cannot be summoned from the record room. No learned Counsel has supplied copy of the said judgment.
(3.) SECTION 286 (2) was amended by SECTION 18 of U. P. Act No. IV of 1969. Prior to the said amendment, SECTION 286 (2) of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act provided as under : "sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue but not due in respect of any specific land may be recovered under this section from any immovable properly of the defaulter. " U. P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 (U. P. Act No. IV of 1969) published in the gazette on 1-9-1969 added the following words to Section 286 (2) of U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act "including any holding of which he is a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami". Relevant portion of the statement of objections and reasons to the Bill which was converted into U. P. Act No. IV of 1969 provided as under :;