JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition challenging the order of respondent No. 3. Tehsildar Anopgarh, who has issued a warrant of attachment of the petitioner's property for recovery of Rs. 1,40,408.60 as the amount said to be due from the sale of the fertilizers on behalf of Panchayat Samiti by the firm Saligram Rameshwardass. 2. The petitioner was a partner of the firm Saligram Rameshwardass along with three others. The firm was registered in 1953-54. The State of Rajasthan, Agriculture Department framed a scheme for distribution of fertilisers to the agriculturists and for this purpose the petitioner firm entered into an agreement with the Agriculture Department Ex. R/8 by which it agreed to work as fertiliser dealer of the Agriculture Department on the conditions mentioned therein. The agreement required the petitioner to sell the fertiliser provided by the Department to the agriculturists either on cash or credit and also to maintain the accounts of the various transactions. It also required the firm to deposit cash sale proceeds in Government treasury every week. 3. One of the partners Saligram died in 1957. It appears that in spite of the death of the partner the firm continued its dealings with the Panchayat Samiti, Raisingh Nagar. It may be added that on the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti the Agriculture Department passed on the work of distribution of fertilisers to the Panchayat Samiti. The transaction continued till 1962-63. Apparently according to the Panchayat Samiti there was an outstanding amount against the firm which rose to Rs. 1,62,595.85 in 1962-63 out of which an amount of Rs. 22,187.25 was deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, the amount of Rs. 1,40,408.60 is still outstanding. Notices were sent by the Panchayat Samiti to the petitioner on 10th August, 1966 and 21 September, 1966 which is said to have been served on the petitioner, but in spite of that he failed to deposit the outstanding amount. Another notice was sent on 7th September, 1971, but the same was returned, un-served. Thereafter the Panchayat Samiti moved the Collector for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue. In pursuance of that respondent No.3 has issued the impugned warrant of attachment under section 230 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (to be called 'the Act') demanding that the amount of Rs. 1,40,408.60 should be paid by the petitioner. Thereafter the Panchayat Samiti moved the Collector for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue. In pursuance of that respondent No.3 has issued the impugned warrant of attachment under section 230 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act (to be called 'the Act') demanding that the amount of Rs. 1,40,408.60 should be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner in response sent a telegram Ex.9 contesting the action of the Tehsildar and taking the stand that the said amount was not liable to be paid by him. The petitioner not having been granted any relief has moved this Court for quashing the impugned warrant of attachment. 4. The first contention of the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Singhvi is that as the firm has been dissolved by the death of one of the partners in 1957 the recovery against the firm could not be made from the petitioner as one of the members of the firm. The plea is without merit because in spite of the death of one of the partners the petitioner admittedly continued to deal with the Panchayat Samiti and received the fertiliser on its account and it is now too late in the day for him to take the plea that the firm had ceased to deal with the Panchayat Samiti or that he is not personally liable for it. 5. The petitioner also challenges that any amount is outstanding. The respondents in support of their plea of the outstanding amount had sought to rely on Ex. R/11, the statement of account which shows as outstanding of Rs. 1,40,408.60 as due from the firm and purports to bear the endorsement said to have been put down by the petitioner. The petitioner has, however, in this rejoinder denied that he verified the correctness of the account on 19th September, 1976 (Ex. R/11). Of course, the Vikas Adhikari Mr. Bhupendra Singh Saruja has by further counter affidavit dated 8th March, 1976 again reiterated that the petitioner did sign and admit the correctness of the amount in Ex. R/11. But the petitioner in the further affidavit in reply dated 12th March, 1976 again said that the document Ex. R/11 has not been signed by him. Bhupendra Singh Saruja has by further counter affidavit dated 8th March, 1976 again reiterated that the petitioner did sign and admit the correctness of the amount in Ex. R/11. But the petitioner in the further affidavit in reply dated 12th March, 1976 again said that the document Ex. R/11 has not been signed by him. Obviously in view of the contradictory stand taken by the parties it is no possible in the writ petition to give any satisfactory finding whether in fact the document has or has not been signed by the petitioner. 6. The more formidable argument of Mr. Singhvi, however is that whether the amount is due or not, the mode of recovery adopted by the respondent is not warranted in law, Ex. 8 warrant of attachment is admittedly issued under section 230 of the Act which provides that the Collector may attach and sell the movable property of the defaulter. Section 256 of the said Act in the same manner as arrears of land revenue. The respondents have sought to justify the invocation of the power under section 230, 256 and 257 of the Act read with section 32 of the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishads Act (to be called the 'Samiti Act'). Now section 257 refers to recovery of money from a surety and evidently can apply only when the said amount can be so realised from the petitioner can be realised as arrears of land revenue under section 256 of the Act. Mr. Calla has sought to rely on clause (e) of section 256, but that clause refers to the sum of money to the State Government under any grant, lease or contract which provides that it shall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue. May be that the amount that is sought to be realised from the petitioner is due to the State Government by virtue of Ex.8, the stipulation that the said amounts due shall be recoverable as arrears of revenue or land revenue is unfortunately missing in Ex. R/8. Mr. Singhvi has referred me to Ganesha Ram v. Collector, Jalore AIR 1968 Rajasthan 72 wherein the Division Bench of this Court had interpreted the word "due" in clause (b) of section 256 to mean that it must be of the same class as rates, levies etc. R/8. Mr. Singhvi has referred me to Ganesha Ram v. Collector, Jalore AIR 1968 Rajasthan 72 wherein the Division Bench of this Court had interpreted the word "due" in clause (b) of section 256 to mean that it must be of the same class as rates, levies etc. The argument being that unless the amount due is in the nature of rates, duties, taxes or charges leviable under a law, the same are not recoverable under section 256 of the Act. Moreover clause (b) further requires the said dues must be under any law or rule having the force of law. This is the condition precedent for applicability of section 256 (b). Admittedly in the present case it was a bilateral agreement under which the amount is said to be outstanding and the recovery is sought. Section 256 (b) is therefore not available to the respondent. 7. Mr. Calla then sought to invoke section 82 of the Samiti Act and suggested that this amount could be realised as arrears of land revenue because it should be treated as a loan granted by the Panchayat Samiti. The argument though ingenious unfortunately cannot be accepted. The amount was never advanced as a loan by the Panchayat Samimit to start with, nor when the Panchayat Samiti took up the distribution of the fertilisers did it convert it has a loan. There are rules known as the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti Loan) Rules, 1960 which provide for giving of a loan. Admittedly no such procedure or formality was followed here. It is not therefore possible to hold that this amount was advanced as a loan by the Panchayat Samiti. 8. The result is that as the respondents have sought to exercise power under a provision of law which is not applicable, the impugned warrant of attachment Ex. 8 has no legal validity and must be quashed. It is unfortunate that it should be so, because prima facie it does appear that the petitioner has been taking advantage of his work as a distributor of the fertiliser on behalf of the Panchayat Samiti. Of course, it is even now open to the respondents, if they so desire to seek to realise any amount said to be still outstanding against the petitioner, in any manner permitted by law. 9. Of course, it is even now open to the respondents, if they so desire to seek to realise any amount said to be still outstanding against the petitioner, in any manner permitted by law. 9. However, for reasons mentioned above this writ petition is allowed and the impugned warrant of attachment Ex.8 is hereby quashed. There will be no order as to costs. *******