ORDER S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Opposite Party No. 3 Mohd. Ayaz Khan filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,000 along with interest against the petitioner on the basis of a promissory note and receipt executed by the petitioner in favour of Mohammad Ayaz Khan. The suit was decreed for Rs. 5,518 together with interest. When the decree holder started proceedings for execution of the decree by sale of the land belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner filed an objection under Section 47, C.P.C. that the auction sale of the agricultural land of the petitioner cannot be made as it is against the mandatory provisions of Section 157-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The objection was dismissed by the executing court on 21st July, 1979. Against the judgment dated 21-7-79 a revision was filed by the petitioner in the court of the District Judge, Rampur. The revision was ultimately dismissed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Rampur, on, 10th September, 1979. The petitioner has now challenged the above mentioned orders by means of the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Section 157-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, restricts the transfer of land by members of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. In view of this provision no attachment or sale of the property belonging to the petitioner can take place as he belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the auction sale would be included in the word `transfer' and as such the restriction imposed by this section would be applicable. 4. The relevant portion of S. 157-A (1) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is as follows:- "(1) Without prejudice to the restrictions contained in Sections 153 to 157, no Bhumidhar or Asami belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe shall have the right to transfer by way of sale, gift, mortgage or lease any land to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe except with the previous approval of the Collector........." 5. Section 157-A of the Act in terms) only prohibits a Bhumidhar who is of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe from transferring by way of sale, gift or mortgage or lease any land to a person not belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe except with the previous approval of the Collector. It applies to voluntary sales. This prohibition has been made so far as the Bhumidhar is one who either belongs to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The prohibition is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Bhumidhar wants to sell or transfer any land then only the previous approval of the Collector is required and not in other cases. In the instant case, the petitioner who is admittedly the Bhumidhar and belongs to a Scheduled Caste is not transferring the land to any person and as such this provision does not apply to the present case at all. In the instant case the court would be executing a sale deed in execution of a decree passed against the Scheduled Caste Bhumidhar. In my opinion, therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 157-A of the Act does not prohibit in any manner the attachment and sale of the property belonging to the Scheduled Caste. 6. Since I have held that Section 157-A of the Act would not apply no question arose of taking permission of the Collector for selling the property by auction. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly relied on Section 23 (2) of the Act which provides that nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to any sale made under order of court in execution of any decree or order for payment of money. The Legislature was aware of the fact that the sale by an auction may come up for consideration in execution of a decree which specifically excludes the said sale under Section 23 of the Act. No such specific provision has been made under Section 157-A of the Act. In the circumstances Section 23 does not advance the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner but in fact supports the view which I have already taken above. In any case as I have already stated above here it is not a case for transfer by the petitioner in favour of a third party. It is a case of an auction sale held in pursuance of the decree by the court passed against the petitioner. In any case as I have already stated above here it is not a case for transfer by the petitioner in favour of a third party. It is a case of an auction sale held in pursuance of the decree by the court passed against the petitioner. 8. In the result, I do not find any force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.