Jalal Uddin v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

R.M Sahai, J.:— The only question that arises for consideration in this petition is if the auction proceeding of the land of petitioner, confirmation of which has been stayed by this Court, for arrears of certain loans taken by him, are in accordance with law.

2. From various allegations mentioned in writ petition its reply in counter-affidavit specially paragraph 7 it appears to be admitted that in 1981 after deducting amount paid by petitioner total amount outstanding against him was approximately Rupees nine thousand.

3. It is alleged in para 9 of the petition that respondent No. 4 i.e Tahsildar, who was annoyed with him, without issuing any notice of den and got the petitioner's sugar-cane crop, standing on the plots mentioned therein, sold. Even if averments in respect of annoyance are ignored there is no reply in counter-affidavit if any notice of demand was served on petitioner at any time before attaching or selling his property.

4. The procedure to recover arrears of land revenue is provided in U.P Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. Section 279 provides for recovery of arrears as land revenue by various mode provided therein. S. 280 requires the Tahsildar to issue writ of demand on defaulter as soon as the arrears of land revenue becomes due. It also empowers him to issue a citation to the defaulter to appear and deposit the arrears on the date specified therein. If the defaulter does not pay the arrears then S. 291 permits his arrest and detention. In addition to it S. 282 empowers the Collector to attach and sell the property of defaulter. But the arrest and detention or attachment and sale could take place only if the defaulter does not pay after a notice of demand has been issued and served. Jurisdiction to proceed under Ss. 281 and 282 is dependent on compliance of S. 279. That is the condition precedent. In absence of service of notice of demand the Collector or Tahsildar could not proceed to attach and sell the property. Such procedure. As property of petitioner was attached sold without compliance of mandatory provision of law, it cannot be maintained.

5. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The auction held of petitioner's property on 22-1-1982, is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs, which is assessed at Rupees one thousand.

6. Petition allowed.