Hari Swarup, J. - (1.) (for self and for K. S. Varma, J.) :-This petition has been filed to challenge the appointment of Receiver under Section 286-A of the U. P. Zail indari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Receiver was appointed by the Collector for collecting dues against the petitioners which were in law recoverable as arrears of Land Revenue. Originally, the Receiver was appointed in 1972. The petitioners challenged the appointment by way of a writ petition filed at Allahabad. That petition was dismissed, according to the learned counsel because the court did not think it appropriate to consider the matter on merits about the appointment of the Receiver. The order about the appointment of Receiver was continued. It was continued again on 1-5-1974 for one year. The present writ petition was filed in August, 1974 challenging this appointment. The appointment of the Receiver was again renewed from year to year and the petitioners went on challenging each order by getting the writ petition amended. The last order was passed on 28-4-1977 for one year. The petitioner got the writ petition amended again by an order of this court dated July 8, 1977.
(2.) THE learned Chief Standing Counsel has urged that the petition stood abated on the enforcement of Section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and that it could not be subse-qently amended. He has further urged that even if the amendment may be deemed as validly made, the petition is liable to be dismissed by reason of clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution. THE contention of the learned counsel is that the order appointing a Receiver is appealable under Section 210 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, is that no appeal lies against an order appointing a Receiver under Section 286-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, even though he has filed an appeal against that order before the Commissioner under section 210 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act in respect of the last order appointing the Receiver. Section 286 -A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act permits the Collector to appoint by an order a Receiver when an arrear of Land Revenue is due. Section 293 of that Act provides :- "The provisions of Chapters IX and X of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, as amended by this Act shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply to applications and proceedings made or taken under this Chapter." Section 210 in chapter X of the Land Revenue Act reads as under :- "210. Courts to which appeals lie.--(1) Appeals shall lie under this Act as follows :- (a) to the Record Officer from orders passed by any Assistant Record Officer. (b) (i) to the Commissioner from orders passed by Collector or an Assistant Collector first class, or Assistant Collector in-charge of Sub-Division. (ii) to the Col lector from orders passed by an Assistant Collector second class or Tahsildar." In the present case, the appointment of the Receiver has been made by the Collector by an order and the Receivership was continued by fresh appointments every year by separate orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no appeal lay because it was not a judicial order. We are Unable to accept that the nature of the order is such which will not be appealable. But even if we accept the contention, the petitioner will have a remedy by way of a revision under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act. The alternative remedy even in such a case will be available and Section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 will become applicable. Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act does not make any distinction as Section 219 does between judicial and non-judicial orders. Chapter X of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in which Section 293 occurs is a Chapter dealing with the assessment and recovery of Land Revenue. When Chapter X of the Land Revenue Act dealing with appeals, references and revisions has been made applicable to applications and proceedings made or taken under Chapter X of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, we see no reason why the orders made for the appointment of a Receiver to collect Land Revenue will not be appealable under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act. The nature of the appointment of a Receiver was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in H. B. Sugar Factory (P.) Ltd. Nekpur v. The State of U. P, 1970 ALJ 768 and it was held that the passing of the order appointing a Receiver requires exercising of a discretion which is regulated by the provisions of Order XL, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Full Bench of this Court in a matter referred in this very case held :- "The Collector exercising powers under Section 286-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has to objectively consider whether it is just and proper to appoint a receiver after giving an opportunity of hearing to the defaulter but he is not bound to exhaust the modes of realization contained in clauses (a) to (f) of section 279 of the said Act before appointing a receiver u/Sec. 286 -A of the Act..........." The nature of the order passed by the Collector appointing a Receiver, therefore, in our opinion, is such which will be amenable to appeal before the Commissioner under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act.
(3.) THE main relief claimed in the writ petition is about the appointment of the Receiver. THEre are certain ancillary reliefs also which arise from the action of the Receiver. If the petition in respect of the main relief has abated, the petition in respect of ancillary or consequential reliefs cannot survive. THE petition being a pending petition on the relevant date must, therefore, abate as a whole under Section 58 of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976. 6, As the petition had abated by operation of law it could not have been amended. Even if it could be amended, the petitioner cannot get relief on that basis because the granting of such a relief is barred by clause (3) of Article 226 of the Constitution. THE petition, therefore, in respect of the amended relief must be dismissed. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed in respect of the relief claimed in regard to the appointment of the Receiver by the order dated 28-4-1977, and qua other reliefs it is declared abated. Petition dismissed.;