B.D. Agarwal, R.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shamsher Bahadur Singh for the respondent No. 1 (Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank at Chunar, Mirzapur).
(2.) Contention raised by the petitioner against the attachment directed of his property by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chunar (Vide Annexure-2) namely is that prior to this attachment being issued there was no writ of demand or citation issued to him. In this connection learned counsel refers to Section 280 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He also cites the decision reported in Jalal Uddin v. State of U.P. and others, 1985 AWC 163. Section 280 or 282 for that matter cannot be read, in our view, divorced from what is provided in Section 279 of the Act. Section 279 catalogues the procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue. It says that an arrear of land revenue may be recovered by any one or more of the processes enumerated thereunder. On the modes, namely, sub-clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 279, is by serving a writ of demand or a citation to appear on any defaulter. The other mode specified in Clause (b) is by arrest and detention of the person. In clause (c) the mode provided is by attachment and sale of movable property including procedure. Thereafter the Act proceeds to elucidate in various sections these different modes separately. We feel that due weight should be attached to the expression 'by anyone or more of the following process' appearing in Section 279 suggesting as they do that the modes specified therein are in the alternative, meaning thereby that the modes referred to in the clauses proceeding need not be exhausted before recourse can be had to any mode which comes to be specified in a succeeding cause, except Section 286 which relates to powers to proceed against interest of defaulter in other immovable property, no other provision in this connection lays down that if the amount cannot be recovered under any of the modes preceding then alone recourse can be had to the modes succeeding the same. We do not find it necessary, however, to express final opinion in this matter considering that the petition may be disposed of on shorter ground. In case the petitioner as stated for him pays the amount claimed under the Certificate of recovery within another two months, the coercive process for recovery shall not be further pursued. In the meantime attachment may continue but the property in question be not put to sale.
(3.) The petition is disposed of with these observations. Decided accordingly.;