JUDGMENT V.K. MEHROTRA, J. 1. ONE Ram Swaroop resident of 282, Subhash Bazar, Meerut took a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the State of Uttar Pradesh under an agreement dated March 7, 1964. He had taken the loan for setting up an industry but unfortunately died before any appreciable steps could be taken by him. Under the terms of the agreement, the amount was payable in instalments with interest and upon failure of the borrower to make payment the amount in balance could be recovered by sale of the property given in security by the borrower House Nos. 254 to 260 (old) and 270 to 277 (new) which was also described with reference to its boundary in the agreement was given as security for the loan. 2. SMT. Sunderwati, widow of the deceased Ram Swaroop and the son and two daughters of the deceased, namely, Anant Ram, SMT. Kusum Rani and SMT. Kamla Rani have approached this court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in the present petition. Their case is that the house given in security by Ram Swaroop was an ancestral property in which Ram Swaroop had only a share. It was not his self-acquired property so that he could not give the entire house as security for the loan. The case further is that when proceedings for recovery as arrears as land revenue were initiated in terms of the agreement, they learnt for the first time that the house had been offered in security and that some part of the loan had remained unpaid by Ram Swaroop. The widow, namely, SMT. Sunderwati made an application to the Hon'ble Minister of Industries, U. P. with the prayer that she may be required to deposit the balance amount of the loan in instalments and that the amount of the interest be waived. It is asserted that she was required to deposit part of the amount borrowed, namely, Rs. 8,000/- by the respondents through a communication dated September 28, 1972 so that the application made by her could be considered further. She deposited this amount on October 3/4, 1972 and gave another application dated December 2, 1972 for the amount of interest and penal interest being waived and for permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- in instalments. She deposited this amount on October 3/4, 1972 and gave another application dated December 2, 1972 for the amount of interest and penal interest being waived and for permission to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,000/- in instalments. She received copy of a communication dated March 23, 1973 addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U. P. to the District Officer, Meerut according to which the District Officer was required to realise the balance amount of the loan from her in five equal six monthly instalments. She, therefore, inferred that the amount of interest had been waived. However, by a notice dated December 23, 1974, she was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,492.71 said to be still due from her deceased husband towards the loan. She was required to appear in the Tahsil Office on December 13, 1974 to show cause why proceedings for recovery of the amount be not taken in accordance with law. Then she filed a detailed objection dated February 26, 1975 before the Tahsildar which was not decided. Instead, the property was attached by the Collector on 1-3-1975. The property was likely to be put to sale so that the widow, son and daughters of the deceased Ram Swaroop had to approach this court for redress through the present writ petition. The petition was admitted to hearing by an order of this Court dated March 25, 1975 and on the prayer made in that regard, an interim order was passed by this Court that the property shall not be sold by the respondents till such time that the objection filed by the widow on February 26, 1975 had not been decided. 3. THE respondents contested the claim made by the petitioner and have filed a counter affidavit sworn by a clerk in the office of the District Industries Officer Meerut. THE case of the respondents is that the property having been offered as security could be sold for recovery of the outstanding amount and that the State Government had not waived the amount of interest and penal interest so that recovery as arrears of land revenue of that amount could be made. One of the objections taken in the counter affidavit is that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the objection filed before him. 4. One of the objections taken in the counter affidavit is that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide the objection filed before him. 4. HAVING heard Sri R. N. Bhalla for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Misra learned State Counsel we are of opinion that the petitioners are entitled to relief from this Court. It is true that the property which has been attached was offered as security by the borrower who had consented to its sale for recovery of any amount due from him as arrears of land revenue. However, the case of the petitioners being that the borrower was not the exclusive owner of the property which was ancestral in character and was not entitled to offer the entire property as security for the loan taken by him, the action of the respondents to take steps, after attaching the entire property, for putting it to sale for the recovery of the amount due from deceased Ram Swaroop without deciding their objection was not justified in law. 5. ANNEXURE 11' to the writ petition is the order of attachment of the property in ZA Form No. 73-D and annexure 11-A is a restraint order in Form 73 under the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act and Rules. The facts recitals in these documents clearly show that the respondents are proceeding to recover the amount under the provisions of the UP ZA and LR Act. It fact, it is not the case of the respondents that they were proceeding to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue under any provision other than the UP ZA and LR Act. 6. SECTION 279 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act permits recovery of an amount as arrears of land revenue inter alia, by attachment and sale of the immovable property of the defaulter. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 279 contemplates attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrears is due while clause (e) contemplates its lease or sale. Clause (f) then provides that the arrears of land revenue may be recovered by 'attachment and sale of other immoveable property of the defaulter'. SECTION 282 deals with attachment and sale of immovable property. SECTION 286 enables the recovery by proceeding against the interest of the defaulter in immovable property other than the holding. Clause (f) then provides that the arrears of land revenue may be recovered by 'attachment and sale of other immoveable property of the defaulter'. SECTION 282 deals with attachment and sale of immovable property. SECTION 286 enables the recovery by proceeding against the interest of the defaulter in immovable property other than the holding. SECTION 286 reads thus: "286 (1) If any arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered by any of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of SECTION 279, the Collector may realize the same (by attachment and sale of the interest of the defaulter) in any other immovable property of the defaulter. (2) Sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered (by process) under this section from any immovable property of the defaulter (including any holding of which he is a bhumidhar, sirdar, or asami." A perusal of these provisions makes it clear that it is only the property of the defaulter which can be proceeded against for recovery of an amount as arrears of land revenue. Section 341 of the Act contemplates that unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 shall apply to the proceedings under the Act. It is obvious that in the absence of any provision in the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or the rules framed thereunder, it would be the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to the attachment and sale of immovable property which will be attracted while proceeding against it for recovery of arrears as the arrears of land revenue. Consequently, it is legitimate to conclude that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable where the interest of a defaulter in the immovable property is proceeded against for recovery of arrears of the present kind. Consequently, it is legitimate to conclude that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable where the interest of a defaulter in the immovable property is proceeded against for recovery of arrears of the present kind. We find considerable support for our view in the observations made by Satish Chandra, J. (as he then was) in R. S. Vaish v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1968 ALJ 106 at page 108 when he observed that "If the proceedings were deemed to be under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would apply to these proceedings by virtue of section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, there being no express provision to the contrary in any of the provisions relating to the proceedings for recovery of arrears of land revenue. To the same effect are the observations of CSP Singh, J. in Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. State of U. P., 1975 RD (H. C.) 246. We may extract the observations contained in paragraph 5 of the report Page 251/252. It will thus be seen that although provision is made in respect of some matters under the Rules relating to the procedure to be adopted for effecting attachment and sale of immovable property, a large number of other matters are not provided for under the Rules. The matters in respect of which no provisions are made like setting out the valuation of the property, incumbrance, etc., the consideration of objection to the attachment, setting aside of the sale at the instance of the auction purchaser when it is established that the judgment debtor had no interest in the property that had been sold, and for putting auction purchaser into possession are matters of vital importance, and I am of the view that the omission to provide for these matters was not purposive. The Rule making authority may in its wisdom have omitted to make provision for these matters, as by section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable. The Rule making authority may in its wisdom have omitted to make provision for these matters, as by section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the Code of Civil Procedure was made applicable. I am unable to agree with the contention that inasmuch as provision has been made only in respect of certain matters relating to attachment and sale of immovable property, the rule making authority of the legislature purposely ommitted to adopt the other provision of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of realisation of arrears of land revenue. The reason appears to be that it was thought fit to provide for the matters set out in the Rules mentioned above because the Rules in some respects, on these matters make a departure from the provisions of Order 21. The scheme appears to be that in those matters where it was thought fit to make a departure from the provisions of the Code specific rules were framed on that topic, and the rest was left to be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure...............Section 341 of the Act begins with the words 'unless otherwise expressly provided by. This implies that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply in all cases except where a particular matter has been specifically provided for by the Act or under the Act, i.e., by Rules framed under the Act." 7. THE submission of the learned Standing Counsel is that there is no provision under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which entitles a third person to file objection before the authority which has proceeded to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue so that the petitioners could not as a matter of law, require the Assistant Collector (Tahsildar) to dispose of the objection filed by the widow on February 26, 1975. Reliance in support of this submission has been placed upon a decision of this Court in Union of India v. Paryati Kuwar, AIR 1965 Alld. 154, in which a learned Single Judge took that view relying upon two earlier judgments of this Court. Suffice it to say that the question before the Court in Parvati Kuwar's case was about the maintainability of a civil suit by a third person who had claimed that the property which had been attached and sold did not belong to the borrower. Suffice it to say that the question before the Court in Parvati Kuwar's case was about the maintainability of a civil suit by a third person who had claimed that the property which had been attached and sold did not belong to the borrower. It was in that context that observations were made by the learned Judge that when proceeding for recovery were being taken under the Land Revenue Act or the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the aggrieved person had no right to file an objection but had the remedy of filing a suit only to establish the right. These observations must be confined to the actual question which was up for decision before the learned Judge. Also, we find that there is no concluded opinion recorded by the learned Judge on the question whether it was permissible for the recovering authority to proceed only against the interest of the defaulter and where it is found that the property proceeded against belongs to a third party, such third party was precluded from raising that objection before the recovering authority. In fact, in paragraph 9 of the Report in Parvati Kuwar's case it has been said by the learned Judge that there was a concession by the counsel appearing for the appellant (defendant) that there was nothing in the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act or in the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which provided for an objection by a third person whose property might be made subject matter of attachment and sale in proceedings for recovery of land revenue. 8. IN view of what we have said earlier about the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must be held that after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by Parliament Act 104 of 1976, rule 58 of Order XXI will take within its sweep an objection filed by a third party to attachment of his interest in the immovable property proceeded against and the question relating to the objection, claim of right and interest in the property must be decided before proceeding further. In the objection filed by her, Smt. Sundarwati has also asserted that the interest and penal interest had been condoned by the State Government and that similar orders had been passed in various other cases. In the objection filed by her, Smt. Sundarwati has also asserted that the interest and penal interest had been condoned by the State Government and that similar orders had been passed in various other cases. In our opinion, equity demand that this matter should also be looked into by the appropriate authority before recovery by sale of the property in question is affected. 9. WE have noticed earlier that this Court had passed an interim order on March 25, 1975 staying the sale of the house till such time as the objection of Smt. Sunder wati had been disposed of. The property had been attached when the petitioners came to this Court and continues to be under attachment. WE, therefore, direct that before proceeding further, the respondents shall dispose of the objection dated February 26, 1975 on its merits, after notice to the petitioners. The petition shall stand allowed in these terms. The parties are left to bear their own costs.