JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The disputed sirdari holding of the petitioner was sold for the realisation of certain dues of the Gaon Sabha realisable as arrears of land revenue as provided under Section 225 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, notwithstanding the petitioner's objection that his sirdari holding could not be sold for the realisation of such clues. Aggrieved by the order of the Sale Officer the petitioner went in appeal which was allowed. Then opposite party No. 1 went in revision before the Board of Revenue, opposite party No. 2. The said revision was allowed and the Board of Revenue took the view that it was permissible under the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Section 286 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to sell a sirdari holding for the realisation of sums of money recoverable as land revenue. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed with a prayer that the impugned order dated the 30th of May, 1966, passed by the Board of Revenue be quashed. 2. The petition is opposed by the opposite parties. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Junior Standing Counsel. 3. Under Section 153 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act it is provided that except as expressly permitted by the Act, the interest of a sirdar shall not be transferable. Then we have Section 279 to say that an arrear of land revenue may be recovered by any one or more of the processes enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. Under clauses (d) and (e) of Section 279 it is provided that the arrears of land revenue may be realised by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due as also by sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due. Section 286 consists of two sub-sections. Under clauses (d) and (e) of Section 279 it is provided that the arrears of land revenue may be realised by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due as also by sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due. Section 286 consists of two sub-sections. In order to appreciate the import of the provisions contained in Section 286 it may better be reproduced in full : "286 (1) If any arrears of land revenue Cannot be recovered by any of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 279, the Collector may realise the same from the interest of defaulter in any other immovable property of the defaulter as if the said arrears were arrears of land revenue assessed on and clue in respect of such other property. (2) Sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered under this section from any immovable property of the defaulter." 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provision in Section 286 (2) for the realisation of sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue by sale of any immovable property of the defaulter refers to the immovable property in which the defaulter has saleable interest and the expression "any immovable property" occurring in Section 286 (2) cannot be taken to include even the sirdari holding in which the defaulter has no saleable interest. As against that, the contention of the learned Junior Standing Counsel is that Section 153 of the Act prohibits only a voluntary transfer by the sirdar and has nothing to do with an involuntary transfer. In the alternative he maintains that the interpretation placed by the Board of Revenue on Section 286 (2) is correct. In my view neither of these contentions raised by the learned Junior Standing Counsel is correct and can be accepted. A plain reading of Section 153 (1) clearly shows that it provides that the interest of a sirdar shall not be transferable except as expressly permitted by the provisions of the Act itself. The expression "shall not be transferable" occurring in Section 153 (1) is wide enough to cover both voluntary and involuntary transfers. A plain reading of Section 153 (1) clearly shows that it provides that the interest of a sirdar shall not be transferable except as expressly permitted by the provisions of the Act itself. The expression "shall not be transferable" occurring in Section 153 (1) is wide enough to cover both voluntary and involuntary transfers. Acceptance of the contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel in this behalf would lead to absurd results, in so far as in that case it would be open to any judgment creditor to attach and sell sir holding of his judgment-debtor for the realisation of the amount decreed in his favour. Obviously such a position is not permissible having regard to the language of Section 153 (1). I have thus no doubt that Section 153 (1) prohibits not only voluntary transfers but also involuntary transfers though, of course, not absolutely. The extent to which it permits voluntary transfers is to be gathered from the provisions contained in Section 153 (2) . The extent to which it permits in voluntary transfers is to be gathered from the provisions contained in Sections 279 and 286 of the Act. The very fact that sub-sec. (1) of Section 286 provides for the realisation of arrears of land revenue as against sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue, whereas sub-sec. (2) provides for the realisation of sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue is -indicative of the fact that the legislature intended to make a distinction between the two kinds of dues. As already noticed under Section 279 power is given to sell a sirdari holding for the realisation of land revenue provided the land revenue is due in respect of the holding sought to be sold. As against that Section 286 (I) permits sale of a sirdari holding other than the one in respect of which the land revenue is due for the realisation of the land revenue. If sub-sec. As against that Section 286 (I) permits sale of a sirdari holding other than the one in respect of which the land revenue is due for the realisation of the land revenue. If sub-sec. (2) of Section 286 were to be interpreted in a manner so as to make it permissible to sell even a sirdari holding for the realisation of sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue even though the interest of the sirdar in the sirdari holding is provided in Section 153 to be non-transferable, then there would hardly remain any distinction between the two classes of dues to distinguish which the legislature appears to have enacted Section 286 in two parts-one providing for the realisation of arrears of land revenue and another for the realisation of sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Judged in this background the expression "any immovable property" occurring in Section 286 (2) cannot but be held to mean only such immovable property in which the defaulter has saleable interest. 5. In addition to what I have said above it may be mentioned that the non-transferability of a sirdari holding as provided in Section 153 is subject to an express provision to the contrary in the Act and not subject to what may be found by necessary implication. There is nothing in Section 286 (2) to provide expressly for the transferability of a sirdari holding for the recovery of sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue. If such an ideas is to be imported in the provision to be found in Section 286 (2) it can be done only on the hypothesis that the expression "any immovable property" occurring therein includes sirdari holding by necessary implication. Thus to give effect to the view expressed by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order would be to run counter to the provision in Section 153 which clearly says that a sirdari holding is non-transferable subject to an express pro-vision to the contrary in the Act. So in any view of the matter the contention of the petitioner that the view taken by the Board of Revenue on the interpretation of Section 286 (2) is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be quashed must be upheld. 6. In the end the petition is allowed with costs and t impugned order dated the 30th of , 1966 is quashed. Petition allowed.