JUDGMENT B.K. Tandon, M. - This revision has been preferred against an order dated November 2, 1977 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division rejecting the objection of the revisionist under Rule 285-I, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules to the auction sale dated July 21, 1977 in respect of house No. 874 situate in Mohalla Khawaspura, Faizabad City, Tahsil and District Faizabad. 2. It appears that the revisionist-objector Jagannath had been in arrears of Industrial loan of Rs. 8,697/- and a certificate of recovery was sent to the Collector, Faizabad for realising the amount as arrears of land revenue. Coercive measures were adopted against the appellant and Z.A. Form No 74 was issued on June 16, 1977 for sale of the house in question on July 21, 1977. On July 7, 1977 actually the auction sale took place and Hanuman Prasad, opposite party No. 2 offered the highest bid of Rs. 14,000/- and he deposited the one-fourth amount of this bid namely Rs. 3,500/-. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The first argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that the house in question had been earlier been put to auction sale for the realization of the same arrears for which the subsequent sale has been made on April 21, 1976. In the previous sale, one-fourth of the highest bid was deposited and the sale was confirmed and objection against it too was rejected by the Commissioner on January 29, 1977. He, therefore, argued that the house of the revisionist could not be put to attachment on sale for realizing the same amount of arrears. I am unable to agree with the argument of the learned counsel. Earlier also it is no doubt true that this house was put to auction sale, but the previous auction purchaser Gyan Chand had resiled from auction sale and one-fourth of the bid money deposited by him was forfeited by the State. The mere fact that this house was put to auction sale earlier and the one-fourth money of the auction price deposited by the auction purchaser was forefeited does not mean that the house which was attached for realisation of Government arrears stand released and could not be put to auction subsequently. The Government arrears have to be realised by putting to sale the house which has been attached for realization of Government dues. 5. The Government arrears have to be realised by putting to sale the house which has been attached for realization of Government dues. 5. The second argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that the Tahsildar was not competent to conduct the auction proceedings. In this connection he referred to Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules which lays down that 'every' sale under section 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. The learned counsel argued that the sale was not conducted by the Collector but by the Tahsildar who was not specially appointed by the Collector in this behalf. The revisionist has not produced any evidence to show that the Tahsildar was not specially appointed by the Collector to conduct the sale proceedings. The Tahsildars are the Assistant Collectors and the mere fact that the Collector has directed the Tahsildar to conduct the auction sale means that the Tahsildar was specially appointed by the Collector to conduct this sale. Therefore, there is no irregularity in the auction sale conducted by the Tahsildar. 6. His third and final argument was that the proclamation issued was defective because the value of the property to be put to auction was not shown in the proclamation. In this connection he referred to Rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and Land Reforms Rules and Rules 477 of the Revenue Manual. Rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules no doubt lays down that in the proclamation of sale under section 286 of the Collector shall state the amount of annual demand and the estimated value of the property calculated in accordance with the rules in Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual. It is true that in the proclamation issued, the estimated value of the house has not been indicated, but the amount of money which is in arrears end which is to be realized has been clearly indicated in this proclamation. The revisionist has not been prejudiced in any way by this omission to mention the value of the property in this proclamation. 7. The order of the Commissioner, Faizabad Division does not suffer from either an error of jurisdiction or a manifest error of law. The revision has no force and is dismissed.