JUDGMENT K. B. Asthana, J. - The petitioner Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dubey owned a large estate in the district of Jaunpur. He was assessed to agricultural income-tax and was ordered to deposit. a sum of Rs. 6,466/-. towards the tax due for 1358 Fasli and another sum of Rs. 33,289/8/6 for the year 1359 Fasli. He applied to the officer concerned that the above said amounts he deducted from the compensation payable to him as a consequence, of the vesting of his estate under the provisions. of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. it appears that his prayer was accepted by the Collector. of Jaunpur who ordered in July 1958 to deduct the above amount of the tax for the two years from the compensation payable to the petitioner. The compensation Officer in accordance the orders of the collector deducted the said amounts and a voucher was prepared in satisfaction of payment of the tax dues. However after lapse of about three years, in 1961 the petitioner received a communication from the Compensation. Officer intimating that the deduction made earlier from the Compensation roll was against the rules and the voucher in payment of the tax would be deemed to be cancelled. The Collector of Jaunpur then seems to have ordered that the amount due as tax for the 1358 and 1359 F. be realised from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The validity and the legality of the above said proceedings, which took place in 1961, have been questioned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. It is not disputed by the opposite parties, that is, Compensation Officer, Shahganj, the Collector, Jaunpur and the State of Uttar Pradesh, that in 1958 the Collector did pass an order for deduction of the tax amount from the compensation payable to the petitioner and that a voucher in satisfaction of the payment of the tax was issued. The stand which has been taken on behalf of the opposite parties is that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1952 the deduction for any amount due as arrears of agricultural income-tax could only be made from the interim compensation payable to the petitioner as he had been assessed to a land revenue of more than rupees ten thousand per annum. It is further stated that no final compensation roll having been prepared any deduction before finalisation of the compensation roll was illegal. I have to examine how far this stand of the opposite parties is justified in law. 3. Sri K.B.L. Guar appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions in support of the petition. His first contention was that the Collector when the ordered the deduction in the year 1958 acted competently as he had the power to order deduction under Section 6(d) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the amounts of tax being due on the basis of assessment for the years prior to the date of vesting and that a voucher for satisfaction having been issued the tax would be deemed to have been paid and no further demand could be made. His second contention was that in any view of the matter after once having accorded satisfaction in respect of payment of tax the Compensation Officer or for the matter of that the Collector of Jaunpur had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and demand a fresh deposit from the petitioner. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been clearly averred that the compensation roll which has been prepared shows the deduction which had been made and the petitioner has been awarded certain amount as compensation after deducting the amounts due from him as agricultural income-tax for the years 1358 and 1359 Fs. 5. I have no doubt in my mind that the provisions of Section 6(d) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act conferred upon the Collector as the agent of the State Government as the agent of the State Government a wide discretion in the matter. He may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, realise an arrear on account of tax on agricultural income assessed under the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948 for any period prior to the date of vesting by deducting the amount from the compensation money payable to an intermediary. As far as this section is concerned, there is nothing which limits the power to make a deduction from what has been described as interim compensation. As a matter of fact interim compensation is nothing but compensation. As far as this section is concerned, there is nothing which limits the power to make a deduction from what has been described as interim compensation. As a matter of fact interim compensation is nothing but compensation. Rule 8-A which has been relied upon by the Junior Standing Counsel cannot be read so as to put any limitation on the wide discretion which the provisions of Section 6(d) conferred. Learned Junior Standing Counsel wants me to read rule 8-A as if it is only from the interim compensation payable to an intermediary who was assessed to land revenue of more than rupees ten thousand per annum that the agricultural income-tax dues can be deducted and the Collector is left with no power to deduct it from the compensation as inch. If Rule 8-A is read in the manner in which the learned Junior Standing Counsel advocates then it would mean that by rule making power the wide discretion which has been conferred - by Section 6(d) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been narrowed down and the wide power has been affected. Such a reading of a rule cannot be countenanced. There is nothing in Section 6(d) to indicate that the deduction was to be made as prescribed. Learned Junior Standing Counsel referred to Section 26 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and submitted that a provision like the one in question could be enacted by a rule and would' be a valid provision. Indeed it is so. In fact Sri Gaur on behalf of the petitioner has not questioned the validity of Rule 8-A. 1 he problem is one of the construction 4" of that rule and its effect. Rule 8-A has been enacted with the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter II in which Section 6 occurs. - One of the purposes of Section 6 is for deducting without prejudice to any other mode of recovery the arrears of agricultural income tax from the compensation payable to an intermediary. Rule 8-A has been enacted with the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter II in which Section 6 occurs. - One of the purposes of Section 6 is for deducting without prejudice to any other mode of recovery the arrears of agricultural income tax from the compensation payable to an intermediary. What then Rule 8-A has done is that in so far as an intermey diary who has been assessed to a land revenue of more than rupees ten thousand is concerned, the arrears of agricultural income-tax shall be deducted from the interim compensation, that is to say, while the scone of the exercise of powers under Section 6(d) is discretionary and covers the entire amount of compensation by enacting Rule SA to the extent Of interim 'Compensation the deduction of tax has been mandatory or compulsory in case of intermediaries paying more than rupees ten thousand land revenue. Whether this compulsion for deduction of arrears is good or bad is not a question which arises in this case. The fact remains that the provisions of Rule 8-A cannot be read.; so as to affect the power of Collector as agent of the State Government from ordering deduction of the arrears of agricultural income-tax front, the compensation payable to any intermediary irrespective of the fact whether he was assessed to a land re-venue of more than rupees ten thousand or less. I also do not find any substance in the contention raised on behalf of the opposite parties that deduction could not be made from the compensation unless the compensation roil had become final. What Section 6 (d) provides is that the deduction of the amount of arrears of tax can be made from the compensation money payable to an intermediary. After estimates, had been made and the Collector knows the approximate amount due as compensation under the provisions of the U. P. Zantindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, think, he has ample power to deduct the amount of tax arrears and then order the compensation roll to be prepared taking into consideration the deduction. In fact that has been done in this case. 6. In fact that has been done in this case. 6. It is not necessary for me to decide the question whether the Compensation Officer after a lapse of three years had the power to re-open the matter for I am of the view that the basis on which the question has been re-opened is legally not sustainable. 7. For the reasons given above, I allow this petition and quash the impugned orders of the Compensation Officer and the Collector. I further direct that the petitioner shall not be called upon again to pay the sum in respect of the agricultural income-lax due for the year 1358 F., and 1359 F., as it has already been deducted from the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled to his costs of this petition.