JUDGMENT B.K. Tandon, Member. - This is a revision under Sec. 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the order dated December 31, 1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division on an application filed by Durga Prasad and Bhaiya Lal under Rule 285(1) of the UPZA and LR Rules against the auction dated September 6, 1977 conducted by the Naib Tahsildar by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraini in realization of sales tax dues against Raja Bhaiya, opposite party No. 2 in the present revision. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that sales-tax dues amounting to Rs. 7324-55 alongwith interest were to be realised from Raja Bhaiya and for this purpose House No. 6, Ward No. 5 Bhiwani Ganj, Attarra was attached and put to auction. Against this, Durga Prasad and Bhaiya Lal made an application under Rule 285(1), UPZA and LR Rules against this auction before the Additional Commissioner contending that the house put to auction belonged to Durga Prasad and not to Raja Bhaiya. The Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that this was a frivolous application and, therefore, dismissed it. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that House No. 6 is Ward No. 5 was wrongly attached for the realisation of sales tax arrears on the basis of a wrong and incorrect Certificate dated December 25, 1975 issued by Sri Sant Kumar Agnihotri, the then Executive Officer. He alleged that the records were manipulated at the instance of the revenue authorities and in place of Durga Prasad the name of Raja Bhaiya was recorded without any inquiry or issuing any notice to the applicants. In support of his contention, he stated that the house tax in this town was imposed for the first time by notification No. 3892 dated July 19, 1975 and it was provided therein that the house tax will be imposed from August 1, 1975. This register was prepared as a consequence of this notification. While preparing this register, Raja Bhaiya was shown as owner of House No. 6. This entry was made without making any inquiry and without the knowledge of the applicant. When the applicant came to know about the attachment of the house, the applicant protested against it and the records of the Municipal Board, Atarra were corrected accordingly. While preparing this register, Raja Bhaiya was shown as owner of House No. 6. This entry was made without making any inquiry and without the knowledge of the applicant. When the applicant came to know about the attachment of the house, the applicant protested against it and the records of the Municipal Board, Atarra were corrected accordingly. He further argued that the applicants obtained certificate from the Municipal Board, Atarra saying that House No. 6 belonged to Durga Prasad and House No. 7 belonged to Bhaiya Lal. He further argued that this register was made for the first time and the entries in this register were made without obtaining any objections from the public. Therefore, according to him the entries previously made in this register without obtaining any objections from the public could not be relied upon. He further argued that the certificate subsequently issued by the Municipal Board, Atarra clearly showed that House No. 6 belonged to Durga Prasad and House No. 7 belonged to Bhaiya Lal and this cannot be attached to realise arrears of land revenue for dues against Raja Bhaiya. His other argument was that instead of House no. 6, House No. 7 has been attached and put to auction. He contended that this mistake is obvious from the serial numbers given in the House Tax Register of 1975-76 prepared by the Nagar Palika, Atarra. According to him, the numbering of Ward No. 5 starts from Bijlighar and the Bijlighar is entered as at Sl No. 1 in this register. According to him, this numbering of houses has been done from east to west and according to this House No. 6 will be on the eastern side and House No. 7 on the western side. In this connection he referred to the site plan prepared by the Naib Tahsildar and argued that this House No. 7 has been shown in the east and House No. 6 has been shown on the west. He argued that from this also it is obvious that the revenue authorities by mistake were auctioning House No. 7 instead of House No. 6. His third argument was that where there is question of injustice to any party, the court can always interfere in a revision also. In support of his argument he cited AIR 1975 SC 1409 and ALJ 1972, p. 551. 4. His third argument was that where there is question of injustice to any party, the court can always interfere in a revision also. In support of his argument he cited AIR 1975 SC 1409 and ALJ 1972, p. 551. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party started his argument by referring to the application given by Durga Prasad in which he stated that he was owner of House No. 6. He argued that in this application he did not mention that House No. 7 was being auctioned in place of House No. 6. In this application he had stated that House No. 6 belongs to him and not to Raja Bhaiya, and on receipt of this application the Collector after getting the matter enquired into through the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that House No. 6 belonged to Raja Bhaiya and thereafter ordered for it auction for realisation of Government dues. Before the Commissioner also the main objection was that according to the Municipal records House No. 6 belongs to Durga Prasad and not to Raja Bhaiya. The additional Commissioner also after examining the Municipal records came to the conclusion that the house in dispute was recorded in the name of Raja Bhaiya upto March, 1976. His argument was that the provisions of the UPZA and LR Act have been made applicable for he realisation of Government dues arrears of land revenue. Proceedings for realisation of sales tax dues do not come within the provisions of S. 333, UPZA and LR Act, because they are neither suits nor proceedings. He, therefore, argued that revision under Section 333, UPZA and LR Act was not maintainable. In support of his argument, he cited 1968 RD 228. His other argument was that the sale of property for realisation of Government dues is provided under Rule 285(I) of the UPZA and LR Rules. Under this rule the Commissioner is authorised to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale. He state that the revisionist never had any complaint with regard to the publishing or the conduct of the sale. He further argued that under this rule, the order of the Commissioner for the purpose of realising tax is final and is not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. He state that the revisionist never had any complaint with regard to the publishing or the conduct of the sale. He further argued that under this rule, the order of the Commissioner for the purpose of realising tax is final and is not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. His final argument was that the rulings quoted by the learned counsel for the revisionist were not applicable because the court can only interfere if it is proved that it has jurisdiction to hear or entertain such a revision. According to him, the proper course for the revisionists was to file a civil suit if they were aggrieved on the ground that the attachment of the house was without jurisdiction. 5. After the close of arguments an application on behalf of the revisionists was presented on May 15, 1973. In this application it was stated that during the arguments the learned counsel for the opposite parties raised an objection that the revision was not maintainable on the ground that the proceedings arising out of realization of dues as arrears of land revenue is a non-judicial matter as contemplated in paragraphs 911 and 912 of the Revenue Manual. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on a case decided by the Board of Revenue on January 1, 1968 Rameshwari Devi v. State of U.P. 1968 RD 228. It was further stated in this application that the revisionists came to know that after the decision of the Board of Revenue, referred to above, para 911 of the Revenue Manual had been amended and the proceedings taken before the Commissioner in matters of recovery as arrears of land revenue have been classified as judicial proceedings vide Gazette Notification No. 236/3/69/II-862 dated December 3, 1969 published at page 5159 of the U.P. Gazette dated December 20, 1969. After this application was presented, the case was again fixed for hearing of arguments on this point alone. The learned counsel for the revisionists reiterated that since the proceedings for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue have become judicial proceedings the revision is maintainable before the Board of Revenue. After this application was presented, the case was again fixed for hearing of arguments on this point alone. The learned counsel for the revisionists reiterated that since the proceedings for recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue have become judicial proceedings the revision is maintainable before the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, in reply, stated that even if it is granted that the proceedings for realisation of dues as arrears of land revenue have become judicial proceedings, even then the decision taken by the Additional Commissioner in this case cannot be interfered with by the Board in a revision because the question whether the house which has been attached belonged to the revisionists or Bhaiya Lal is a question of fact and the decision on such a question cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction by the Board. In support of his argument, he cited the decision taken in a case Ram Prasad v Ch. Hatim Ali Khan 1971 RD 10. 6. While filing this revision under Sec. 333, UPZA and LR Act, the applicants had also prayed that the proceedings for the ejectment of the revisionists from the house be stayed. The proceedings for ejectment of the revisionists from the house were stayed and the Collector was directed to enquire whether there is any truth in the contention of the revisionists that instead of House No. 6, House No. 7 which belongs to the revisionists has been put to auction. The report of the Collector has been received and it is dated April 29, 1978. The Collector in his report has said that House no. 6 situated in Ward No. 5 in Atarra, district Banda belonged to the defaulter Raja Bhaiya and this House alone has been attached and put to auction for realising Government dues. I had also called the records of the Municipal Board, Atarra and I have seen the entries made in the Kar Nirdharan Register of 1975-76. from this register it appeared that in Ward No. 5 at SI 1123 House No. 6 was recorded in the name of Raja Bhaiya originally. Then the name of Bhaiya Lal, son of Sita Ram was recorded and this too was sdored out and finally the name of Durga Prasad was recorded. Similarly, against Serial No. 1124, House No. 7 was originally recorded in the name of Durga Prasad. Then the name of Bhaiya Lal, son of Sita Ram was recorded and this too was sdored out and finally the name of Durga Prasad was recorded. Similarly, against Serial No. 1124, House No. 7 was originally recorded in the name of Durga Prasad. This entry was scored out and instead the name of Bhaiya Lal was recorded. In the remarks column of this register there is an entry against House No. 7 that this change has been made vide Executive Officer order dated March 24, 1976. Neither the original order of the Executive Officer dated March 24, 1976 nor the application on which these orders were passed could be produced before me by the employee of the Municipal Board, Atarra who had brought these records. 7. I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The first question is whether a revision under S. 333 of the UPZA and LR Act can be filed against an order passed by the Commissioner regarding realisation of dues as arrears of Land Revenue. In view of the amendment, referred to above, made in paragraph 91 of the Revenue Manual, it is now clear that such proceedings are judicial proceedings and, therefore a revision under Section 333 of the UPZA Act is maintainable. The decision taken by Sri C.N Nigama, Judicial Member in the case referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite parties will not be applicable now because this decision relates to the period prior to the amendment made in para 911 of the Revenue Manual. Therefore, there is no doubt that a revision to the Board will lie against the order of the Commissioner regarding realisation of dues as arrears of land revenue. 9. Now, the next question which follows is whether the decision taken by the Additional Commissioner in this particular case would require revisional interference. The learned counsel for Board should interfere under Section 333, UPZA and LR Act if material injustice has been done to the applicants. In support, he aha cited AIR 1975 SC 1409 . 9. Now, the next question which follows is whether the decision taken by the Additional Commissioner in this particular case would require revisional interference. The learned counsel for Board should interfere under Section 333, UPZA and LR Act if material injustice has been done to the applicants. In support, he aha cited AIR 1975 SC 1409 . In this ruling, it has been observed that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the concurrent realities, the court can, and in many cases must, take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the institution of the proceedings, provided the rules of fairness to both sides are scrupulously obeyed. I have carefully gone through this ruling. The facts of the case discussed in this ruling are quite different to the facts of this case. Here, in this case, the revisionists had an opportunity to file an appeal before the Commissioner. There were no developments or events subsequent to the proceedings for realisation of Government dues. This ruling, therefore, in my opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The other ruling quoted by the learned counsel for the revisionists was 1972 ALJ 551. In this ruling it has been observed that in the ultimate analysis, the High Court should interfere in revision where the interests of Justice require it to do so. This ruling is also not of much help to the revisionists. The case of the revisionists was enquired into by the Collector and after making an enquiry House No. 6 which was originally in the name of Bhaiya Lal was put to auction. The appeal filed by them before the Commissioner was also dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be argued that it would be in the interest of justice in this case under the revisional jurisdiction of the Board. 10. The appeal filed by them before the Commissioner was also dismissed. Therefore, it cannot be argued that it would be in the interest of justice in this case under the revisional jurisdiction of the Board. 10. Section 333 of the UPZA Act lays down that the Board may call for the record of any suit or proceedings decided by any subordinate court in which no appeal lies, or where an appeal lies but has not been preferred, and if such subordinate court appears (a) have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the Board may pass such order in the case as it thinks fit. "So, in this particular case, it has to be seen whether the order passed by the Additional Commissioner falls in any of the three categories referred to in Sec. 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. From the report of the Collector it is clear that House No. 6 situated in Ward No. 5 belonging to Raja Bhaiya was attached and put to auction. The Additional Commissioner also in his judgment has come to the same conclusion. The Additional Commissioner in his judgment dated December 31, 1977 has further observed that House No. 6, which is in dispute was recorded in the name of Raja Bhaiya U.P. to March 1976 and it was only on March 24, 1976 that Bhaiya Lal, father of the defaulter Raja Bhaiya moved an application stating that House No. 6 should be recorded in the name of his brother Durga Prasad and it was on the basis of this application that the name of Durga Prasad was recorded as owner of House No. 6. This finding of the Additional Commissioner is also borne out from the entries in the Kar Nirdharan Register of Municipal Board Atarra which was shown to me during the course of hearing of this revision. This clearly shows that both the courts below have come to finding that House No. 6 belonged to Raja Bhaiya and this is the house which has been attached for reaslisation of sales tax dues. This being obviously a question of fact, there would be no justification for me to interfere with this finding in this revision. This clearly shows that both the courts below have come to finding that House No. 6 belonged to Raja Bhaiya and this is the house which has been attached for reaslisation of sales tax dues. This being obviously a question of fact, there would be no justification for me to interfere with this finding in this revision. A similar view has been taken in the case" Ram Prasad v. Ch. Hatim Ali Khan 1971 RD 10 referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The decision taken in this ruling is based on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme court in a case Panduran v. Maruti AIR 1966 SC 153 . It would be worthwhile to reproduce the decision taken in this ruling :- "As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panduran v. Maruti AIR 1966 SC 153 points of law arise which are related to the question of jurisdiction, e.g., a plea of limitation or res-judicata concern the jurisdiction of the court as a finding in favour of the parties raising it would oust the jurisdiction, but an erroneous decision on a question of having no relation to jurisdiction will not be corrected under revisional powers. The same ruling stands that in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction errors of facts, however, gross they may be, or even errors of law cannot corrected." 11. The result is that the order of the Additional Commissioner does not suffer from either an error of jurisdiction or manifest error of law and, therefore, there will be no justification nor revisional interference. The revision has no force and is dismissed.