JUDGMENT G.C. Mathur, J. - In 1955 the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 5,0001-from the State Government for the construction of a tubewell. The terms and conditions on which the loan was granted were embodied in a document, a copy of which is filed as Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit. As a security for the aforesaid loan the petitioner hypothecated 150 bighas of his Bhumidhari land. The petitioner was unable to pay the instalments due in accordance with the terms agreed upon. thereupon proceedings were started for the recovery of the amount due as arrears of land revenue. Admittedly the amount. could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions contained in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It appears that a writ of demand was issued to the petitioner, but he did not deposit the amount due. He was then arrested and sent to jail. Since the petitioner did not even then pay up the amount, an order was made under Section 2b2 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the attachment and sale of the machinery of the petitioner's tubewell. It appears that before the attached property could be put to sale, the engine or the motor was removed. According to the petitioner, it was removed by the authorities; but, according to the authorities, it was removed by the petitioner. I am not concerned in this case with that controversy. 2. The only point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property attached was exempted from attachment and sale under sub-Sec. (3) of Section 282, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This sub-section reads thus: "In addition to the particulars mentioned in Clauses (a) to (0) of the proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, articles se apart exclusively for the use of religious worship shall be exempted from attachment and sale under this section." 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Cl. (b) of the proviso to sub-Sec. (I) of Section 60, C. P. C., the implements of husbandry of an agriculturist debtor were exempted from attachment and sale, and that, since a tubewell was an implement of husbandry, it fell within the exemption. Even if it be assumed that a tubewell belonging to an agriculturist is an implement of husbandry as contemplated by Cl. Even if it be assumed that a tubewell belonging to an agriculturist is an implement of husbandry as contemplated by Cl. (b), as to which there is, considerable doubt, the contention of the petitioner is not sound. Section 282 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act empowers the Col-lector to attach and sell moveable property for recovery of arrears of land revenue. Sub-Sec. (3) of this section is a proviso or exception to sub-Sec. (1). In other words, sub-Sec. (3) also relates only to move-able property and exempts moveable property falling within Cls. (a) to (o) of the proviso to sub-Sec. (1) of Section 60, C. P. C. and moveable articles set apart exclusively for the use of religious worship from attachment and sale. If the petitioner had some moveable property which was an implement of husbandry, it would be exempt from attachment and sale under sub-Sec. (I) of Section 282; but sub-Sec. (3) is not concerned with, and does not exempt from attachment and sale, immovable property which may be an implement of husbandry of an agriculturist. The section which deals with attachment and sale of immoveable property for the recovery of arrears of land revenue is Section 286 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Sub-Secs. (1) and (2) of this section empower the Collector to attach and sell certain immoveable property of the defaulter. There is no exemption contained in this section. It would, therefore, appear that there is no protection from attachment and sale of immoveable property of an agriculturist defaulter even if the property is an implement of husbandry. Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not in terms apply to Section 286. Section 60 is applicable only to execution of decree and proceedings under Section 286 do not amount to execution of a decree. From this it follows that the tubewell of the petitioner, even if it was an implement of husbandry, could be attached and sold under Section 286. When the entire tubewell is liable to be sold, there can really be no legal objection to the sale of a part of the machinery thereof. It cannot be argued that a part of the machinery, which is sought to be sold, itself amounts to an implement of husbandry. If the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land. When the entire tubewell is liable to be sold, there can really be no legal objection to the sale of a part of the machinery thereof. It cannot be argued that a part of the machinery, which is sought to be sold, itself amounts to an implement of husbandry. If the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land. Reforms Act do not protect the tubewell as a whole from attachment and sale for recovery of arrears of land revenue, it is futile to say that it protects parts of that tubewell from attachment and sale. If there-is no intention on the part of the Legislature to save the means of irrigation as a whole, no intention can be implied to save parts of that means of irrigation. In my opinion, the attachment of the machinery of the petitioner's tubewell was not illegal. 4. There is no force in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.