JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner wants that the order of attachment of his properties in proceedings for recovery of arrears of Sales Tax due from respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be quashed. 2. The petitioner states that the properties which had been attached by the respondents belong to him exclusively and respondents 5 and 6, though his sons, have no right, title or interest in them. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 carried on business in the name of M is Industrial Linkers in Bareilly and defaulted in payment of Sales Tax. The Sales Tax Officer sent a certificate of recovery to the Collector of Bareilly praying that the same be recovered as arrears of find revenue. In proceedings commenced by the Collector, certain house properties and a printing press belonging exclusively to the petitioner had been attached. The petitioner filed objections stating that the properties were exclusively his self-acquired, and either Ks Industrial Linkers or respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had no interest whatever to them. He prayed that the properties be released from attachment and not sold away. The Sales Tax Officer contested the petitioner's objection. He alleged that the properties were the joint family properties of the petitioner and his sons, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and they are not the self-acquisition of the petitioner. It was also alleged that since the property has been proceeded with for recovery of Sales Tax clues as arrears of land revenue, the only course open to the petitioner was to deposit the amount under protest and then file a civil suit for the decision of the intricate question of title. The present objection was not maintainable. The Additional District Magistrate, Bareilly, on 3-5-1965 dismissed the petitioner's objection. He relied upon a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Parbati Kunwar, A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 154 in holding that the objection was not entertain able. The petitioner's proper remedy was to file a regular suit. The petitioner went up in appeal, but the Commissioner dismissed the same on 23-4-1966. The petitioner then filed a revision which was summarily rejected by the State Government on 18th August, 1965. 3. From the appellate order of the Commissioner it appears that the proceedings were conducted under the Land Revenue Act read with the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner then filed a revision which was summarily rejected by the State Government on 18th August, 1965. 3. From the appellate order of the Commissioner it appears that the proceedings were conducted under the Land Revenue Act read with the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The appellate order states at the beginning that "this is an appeal under Section 210 of the Land Revenue Act read with Section 293 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." At the hearing, the learned Junior Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, urged that the proceedings in this case would lie under the Land Revenue Act alone and the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act will be inapplicable. In my opinion, the statement is well founded. Under Section 1 (2) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Act does not extend to the areas which were included in a municipality. So the Act will not apply to municipal areas. The properties in dispute are all situate within municipal limits. Section 339, clause (c) provides for the amendment of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. It says that the U.P. Land Revenue Act shall in its application to such area be deemed to be and is hereby amended to the extent mentioned in column 3 of List II of Schedule aforesaid (namely Schedule III) . Such area mentioned in this section refers to any area where vesting has taken place i.e. to say areas to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has become applicable. It is no ones case that the Act has been applied or extended to municipal areas, hence so far as municipal areas are concerned, U.P. Land Revenue Act is still in force unaffected by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The present proceedings for recovery of the U.P. Sales Tax as arrears of land revenue would, in the eye of law, be proceedings under the Land Revenue Act and not under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 4. The proceedings being under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the authorities below were not justified in relying upon the decision given under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The decision of Union of India v. Parbati Kzenwar, A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 154 will hence be wholly inapplicable. 4. The proceedings being under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the authorities below were not justified in relying upon the decision given under the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The decision of Union of India v. Parbati Kzenwar, A.I.R. 1965 Alld. 154 will hence be wholly inapplicable. Incidentally I may notice that if the proceedings were deemed to be under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would apply to these proceedings by virtue of Section 341 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, there being no express provision to the contrary in any of the provisions relating to the proceedings for recovery of arrears of land revenue. 5. Sec. 146 of the Land Revenue Act provides for the various processes through which the land revenue may be recovered. Under clause (h) it can be recovered by sale of other immovable property of the defaulter. For this provision is made in Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act which runs as follows: 162 " (1) If an arrear cannot be recovered by any of the above processes and the defaulter owns, or is in possession of, any other mahal, or any share in any other mahal, or any other immovable property, the Collector may proceed against such mahal, or share, or other immovable property as if it were the land on account of which the revenue is due, under the provisions of this Act: Provided that no interest save those of t1;e defaulter alone shall be affected by such process, and when such property is sold, the provisions of Section 161 shall not apply to such sale. (2) Sums of money recoverable as arrears of revenue, but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered by process under this section against any immovable property of the defaulter." 6. The first condition for the applicability of this section is that the arrears cannot be recovered by any of the above processes i.e. to say any of the other processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 146. 7. The other condition precedent to the applicability of Section 162 is that the defaulter owns or is in possession of the immovable property sought to be, proceeded against. The Collector, who seeks to proceed against such property has to fulfil those conditions precedent. 7. The other condition precedent to the applicability of Section 162 is that the defaulter owns or is in possession of the immovable property sought to be, proceeded against. The Collector, who seeks to proceed against such property has to fulfil those conditions precedent. Any person who claims that the defaulter has no share or is not in possession of the immovable property sought to be proceeded against cannot be debarred from haying his say. By refusing to entertain this kind of objection, the Collector would in effect be refusing to decide whether the defaulter is in possession or has any share in the immovable property. Section 162 lays an obligation on the Collector to fulfil these conditions. In order to fulfil it the Collector will, in my opinion, be bound to entertain and decide an objection relevant to that, raised by any person. 8. The proviso says that no interest. save those of the defaulter alone shall be affected by such process. It presupposes that the Collector will make an effort to find what share or interest of the defaulter in the immovable property is, and sell that alone. If in spite of due care and attention something else is actually sold that will not affect the interest which did not belong to the defaulter. All these provisions indubitably lead to the conclusion that an objection that the defaulter does not have any share or is not in possession, is entertain able by the Collector. 9. Under Section 172 a person whose land or other immovable property has been sold under this Act may apply, to have the sale set aside on his depositing the amount mentioned therein and on his so depositing the sale is liable to be set aside. This provision comes into force only after the sale. This does not prohibit an enquiry into the question whether the defaulter has any share in the property prior to its being sold. Similarly Section 183 of the Land Revenue Act provides that a person against whom proceedings for recovery of any land revenue are being taken can, on depositing the amount under protest, have the proceedings stayed. This provision applies to a defaulter. This will not prohibit a stranger, a third party, from filing an objection that the property sought to be attached does not belong to the defaulter, without making any deposit: - 10. This provision applies to a defaulter. This will not prohibit a stranger, a third party, from filing an objection that the property sought to be attached does not belong to the defaulter, without making any deposit: - 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to entertain the objection of the petitioner and decide it accordance with the law. 11. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs.