JUDGMENT Gopalji Mehrotra, J. - These petitions raised a common question of law and may be disposed of by one common judgment 2. The applicants in all these three petitions took lease of some land for agricultural purposes in village Osa, tahsil Manjhanpur, District Allahabad from the then Zamindar of the village Sri Shyam Das. The Petitioners realised that they were not able to get a crop from the land inspite of their best efforts and spending a large amount of money. After the coming into force of the ZA and LR Act the land vested in the State Government and the Petitioners finding the land not profitable to them surrendered the land and made applications some time in April 1953 to the Tehsildar, Manjhanpur representing their intention that they had surrendered the land and they were no longer in possession. Certain proceedings were held by the Tehsildar which now transpires after a perusal of the papers filed along with the rejoinder affidavit and thereafter the orders passed were that "Amaldaramad be made and the records be filed." The Petitioners were, however, compelled to pay the land revenue of the year 1953 and 1954. On 29-3-1954 the Petitioners presented another application to the Tehsildar again expressing their intention and pointed out that they had already ~ surrendered the holdings. Inspite of their surrendering of their holdings in dispute certain lands of the Petitioners have been attached for payment of the land revenue in respect of the plots which were surrendered by the Petitioners. On these facts the present petitions have been filed and a writ of mandamus has been claimed directing the opposite parries to restrain from selling the applicant's property for arrears of land revenue relating to the disputed plots and further a writ of certiorari quashing the attachment orders against the Petitioners. 3. Notices were issued to the Collector Allahabad and Tahsildar Manjhanpur and to the State of Uttar Pradesh and a counter affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that the applicants are sirdars of 83 bighas 19 biswas of land situate in village Osa Pargana Atharban Tehsil Manjhanpur District Allahabad and are liable to pay an annual land revenue amounting to Rs. 229/2/6 therefor u/s 242 and 243 of the UPZA and LR Act. 229/2/6 therefor u/s 242 and 243 of the UPZA and LR Act. As regards surrender, it is stated that it was never accepted and no orders were passed with the result that their names still continue to be recorded as sirdars in Khataunis of 1360 and 1363 Fasli. The liability of the payment of the land revenue would not cease so long as they continued to be recorded as sirdars and so long as the surrender is not accepted by the competent authority under Rule 167 of the rules framed under the UP ZA and LR Act 1950. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the Petitioners it is asserted that certain documents have been filed which show that on the application made by the Petitioners notices were issued to the Gaon Sabha as well as to the State Government, and after the notices had been served orders were passed by the Tahsildar that effect should be given to the application. It appears that inspite of those orders the connections were not made in the papers. The contention of the Standing Counsel is that as he names of the Petitioners still continued to be recorded in the Khataunis of 1360 and 1363 Fasli as sirdars their liability to pay the land revenue has not ceased and that the surrender cannot be given effect to unless it has been accepted by the proper authority under Rule 167. 5. Section 183 of the ZA and LR Act provides: A sirdar may surrender his holding or any part thereof by making an application in writing to the Tehsildar and giving a notice in writing to the Gaon Sabha, intimating his intention to do so and by giving up possession thereof whether such holding is or is not let. Section 190 provides: (1) subject to the provisions of Section 172 the interest of a sirdar in holding or any part thereof shall be extinguished: (c) When he surrenders his holding or part thereof. 6. If the surrender therefore was valid, the interest of the Petitioners as sirdar in the lands would cease. Reliance was placed by the Standing Counsel on the provisions of Section 243 which provides that all bhumidhars and sirdars in any village shall be jointly and severally responsible to the State Government for the payment of the land revenue for the time being assessed thereon. Reliance was placed by the Standing Counsel on the provisions of Section 243 which provides that all bhumidhars and sirdars in any village shall be jointly and severally responsible to the State Government for the payment of the land revenue for the time being assessed thereon. There is no doubt that the liability is on the sirdars to pay the land revenue but the liability u/s 242 could only subsist so long as the sirdar's right has not been extinguished. 7. The main question, therefore, still remains to be considered is whether the rights of the applicants sirdars had extinguished in the lands or not. The contention of the Standing Counsel is that under the rules framed under the Act the surrender cannot be given effect to unless it has been accepted by the competent authority under Rule 167 which provides as follows: (1) After receipt of an application for the surrender of the land the tahsildar shall at the commencement of the next agricultural year send the application to the patwari of the circle who shall get it attested by the applicant and the Chairman of the Land Management Committee and report if possession has been given up. (2) On receipt of the patwari's report to the effect that possession has been given up and if the notice and the application had been given and made before the first day of April the tahsildar shall order the correction of papers accordingly: 8. Provided that in cases where a part of the holding has been surrendered the tahsildar shall submit a report to the Assistant Collector incharge of the Sub-Division who shall apportion the revenue payable for the portion which has not been surrendered." Sub-section (3) provides: If the application and the notice had been given and made after the first day of April the action for the correction of papers shall be taken after the expiry of the year next succeeding the agricultural year in which the application had been made. 9. There is nothing in these rules which provides that the surrender will not be operative even though there has been compliance with the provisions of Section 183 unless such surrender has been accepted by a competent authority. On the receipt of any such application as contemplated u/s 183 certain procedures provided under Rules 165, 166 and 167 has to be gone into by the Tahsildar. On the receipt of any such application as contemplated u/s 183 certain procedures provided under Rules 165, 166 and 167 has to be gone into by the Tahsildar. In the present case as I have already pointed out an application was made on which notices were issued to both the State Government and to the Gaon Sabha and after the service of the notice the Tahsildar directed that the effect should be given to these applications. The surrender, therefore, if effect has also been accepted by a competent, authority. The only circumstance pointed out by the Standing Counsel is that entries in the Khataunis of 1360 and 1363 have not been corrected. But that by itself does not mean that the surrender has not been effective and the right of the sirdars has not come to an end. It was then contended that there was no compliance with the provisions of Section 183 and in my opinion there has been full compliance with the provisions of Section 183 in this case. A sirdar can always surrender his holding by making an application in writing to the Tahsildar and by giving a notice in writing to the Gaon Sabha, intimating his intention to do so. In the present case an application had been made to the Tahsildar, notice was given to the Gaon sabha by the Tahsildar and the Petitioners had given up possession of their holdings. All the necessary requirements of Section 183 have substantially been complied with and it cannot be said that there was no proper surrender. 10. Another point which may be noticed in this connection is that u/s 286 of the ZA and LR Act the power to realise arrears of land revenue in respect of certain holding of the tenant from attachment or sale of his other properties can only be exercised if the steps to realise the amount of land revenue by attachment or sale of the holding the land revenue of which has not been paid had been taken. In the present case it does not appear that any attempt had been made to realise the arrears of the land revenue in respect of the disputed plots by attachment and sale of those plots. In the present case it does not appear that any attempt had been made to realise the arrears of the land revenue in respect of the disputed plots by attachment and sale of those plots. It is admitted that the land revenue for which the attachment has been made of some other property of the Petitioners was in respect of the plots which have been surrendered by the Petitioners themselves. 11. In the result, therefore, I allow these petitions, quash the orders of attachment and direct the opposite parties that the arrears of land revenue in respect of the plots which have been surrendered by the Petitioners will not be realised by attachment and sale of other properties of the Petitioners. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.