JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - In proceedings for recovery of arrears of sales tax from one Maharaj Kumar Mussoorie Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, a property known as Fair Lawn Palace. Jhari Pani, Mussoorie, was attached. The Appellants filed an objection claiming that the property did not belong to Maharaj Kumar Mussoorie Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana. The case set up by the Appellants was that the family dispute between the Appellants and Maharaj Kumar Mussoorie Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana was referred to arbitration of the Ruler of Nahan who gave his award on February 15, 1963, under which the Fair Lawn Palace and certain other properties were awarded to the share of the Appellants who became the absolute owners thereof. It was also claimed that the award had been made a rule of the Court and a decree had been passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dehra Dun, on May 6, 1963 and under that decree the Appellants were exclusively entitled to the property sought to be proceeded against. 2. The objection filed by the Appellants purported to be Under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure. The SDO dismissed the objection without going into the merits of the claim put forward by, the present Appellants on the view that there was no provision in the Land Revenue Act for entertaining the present objection as preferred Under Order 21, Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by the order of the SDO the Appellants filed a writ petition in this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by his order dated 19th October, 1965. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. It is true that Order 21, Rule 58, CPC does not specifically apply to recovery proceedings but the objections filed by the Appellants were maintainable u/s 162 of the Land Revenue Act. Section 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 the immovable property of the defaulter. Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act provided: 162(1). Section 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 the immovable property of the defaulter. Section 162 of the Land Revenue Act provided: 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 the 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. 4. The conditions precedent for the applicability of this section are that the defaulter owns or is in possession of the property sought to be proceeded against. If any person claims that the defaulter had no share in the property, that question has to be decided before the arrears could be recovered from that property. In R.S. Vaish v. State of UP 1968 ALJ 106 one of us took the view that Section 162 clearly provided for an objection of the nature filed in the present case and that before the Collector could proceed to realise the arrears he had first to decide the objections raised by the person who claimed the property to be his and not of the defaulter. In the present case the objection was headed as one Under Order 21, Rule 58, Code of Civil Procedure, but that was not conclusive and it was open to the SDO to treat the objection is one u/s 162, Land Revenue Act. The learned single Judge was not right in his view that the only remedy of the Appellants was by way of a suit and that no objections could be entertained by the SDO. 5. We accordingly allow this appeal with costs, set aside the order of the learned single Judge and quash the order of the SDO dated 21-4-1965. The objections filed by the Appellants shall be heard and decided by the SDO on merits.