JUDGMENT R.K. Gulati, J. - Through this writ petition, the recovery Proceedings including the auction sale of certain Properties of the petitioners. held on 12th August, 1988 are challenged. A writ of certiorari is also sought seeking quashing of the orders contained in Annexures 13 to 15 of the Writ Petition, by which the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Agra, had dismissed the objections of the petitioners against the auction sale. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are these; The petitioners namely, Hari Babu, Radhey Shyam and Mahraj Singh are brothers. The two other brothers are Prakash Singh and Swaraj Singh. All these persons are sons of one Kalu Mal (since deceased). According to the petitioners, soon after the death of their father, the ancestral properties which are the subject matter of sale, along with other Properties were mutually partitioned between them by way of it family settlement followed by a decree passed by it competent civil court in the year 1988. 3. It is not in dispute that a sum of Rs. 64,800/ - was due as arrears of excise licence fee and sales tax from Radhey Shyam petitioner No. 2, being one of the co-licensee along with Ram Gopal, Nanhe Khan, Kashmira Singh and Mangat Singh, who had taken it licence in their joint name in the year 1977-78 for the sale of country liquor. In the year 1963, at the instance the District Excise Officer, Mainpuri, a recovery certificate was issued against Radhey Shyam, initially house property Nos. 822, 823, 824/120, 825, 830, 837 to 840 situated in Mohalla Kazi Tola. Shikohabad (herein referred to as "house properties") were put to auction on 15-2-1986 in satisfaction of the recovery certificate aforesaid treating these properties belonging to the defaulter. However, the sale was set aside by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Agra vide his order dated 15-3-1987 on the objections filed by the petitioners. The case of the petitioner, Hari Babu was that in the family partition, house properties which were subjected to auction rile, exclusively fell to his share and the other brothers had no right, title or interest in these properties. This claim of Hari Babu was supported by all the other brothers, including Radhey Shyam. The case of the petitioner, Hari Babu was that in the family partition, house properties which were subjected to auction rile, exclusively fell to his share and the other brothers had no right, title or interest in these properties. This claim of Hari Babu was supported by all the other brothers, including Radhey Shyam. While setting aside the sale and directing fresh proceedings to be taken, the Additional Divisional Commissioner directed that before taking any further action, the Collector should decide the objection whether the disputed properties belong to the defaulter Radhey Shyam. The house properties were again notified for auction in July, 1987 and on the objections being taken again, the Collector, Mainpuri called for a report from Tahsildar, Mainpuri. A copy of the report is Annexure to the writ petition. The Tahsildar reported that apart from the arrears outstanding against Radhey Shyam a sum of Rs. 10,200/- was also due as arrears of sales tax from Mahraj Singh, petitioner No. 3, and Rs. 56.49 was due as rent (lagan) from all the five brothers. Further, as the family settlement was not a registered document the claim regarding the family partition. In his opinion, was bogus and the house properties were the joint family properties of all the brothers. The Tahsildar also opined that as all the co-owners, of the house properties were in arrears and defaulters, the same could validly be put to auction. He also sought instructions from the Collector for future action. 4. There is nothing on record to show that any further orders were passed by the Collector on the report of the Tahsildar, and if so, to what effect. However, on 6th June, 1988 the Tahsildar again issued a fresh sale proclamation purporting to act under S. 286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, fixing auction sale of house properties aforesaid on 12th July, 1988. Yet another sale proclamation was issued on 12th July, 1988 fixing the auction sale on 12-8-1988. In the last mentioned proclamation, apart from the house properties, 2 / 5 th share of Radhey Shyam alone in certain agricultural plots was also notified for sale. The name of all the five brothers including the petitioners were shown as defaulter, and the arrears of land revenue sought to he recovered were shown as Rs. 75,056/- with a bifurcation Rs. 64,800/- as excise duty. Rs. The name of all the five brothers including the petitioners were shown as defaulter, and the arrears of land revenue sought to he recovered were shown as Rs. 75,056/- with a bifurcation Rs. 64,800/- as excise duty. Rs. 10,200/- as sales tax and Rs. 56/- as lagan (rent). There was no indication against the amounts from whom the said arrears were due. 5. To the above sale proclamation fresh objections were filed by each of the petitioners before the Collector. However, without taking any decision on them, house properties and agricultural plots were sold for Rs. 85,000/- (as stated at the bar). Another set of objections were filed by the petitioners after the auction sale, before the Divisional Commissioner, which were dismissed vide Annexures 13 to 15 to the writ petition, as mentioned earlier. 6. We may also notice some other objections taken by Maharaj Singh and Radhey Shyam before statutory functionary. According to Maharaj Singh arrears attributed to him were not due from him but were the dues against "Maharaj Soap Factory" with which he had no concern. Radhey Shyam while denying his interest or title in the house properties attached, stated that House Nos. 44 to 46 Katra Mira, Shikohabad were owned by hint and he will have no objection, if these houses were sold in satisfaction of the arrears due against him. For the reasons not apparent from the record of these proceedings, those houses were not proceeded against. 7. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed. 8. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the attachment and auction sale was completely without jurisdiction and illegal, inasmuch as, the Collector failed to decide the question about the title, interest and ownership of the properties sold, which was contrary to the directions given by the Divisional Additional Commissioner, Agra, vide his order dated 15-3-1987. The name of Hari Babu and Maharaj Singh were wrongly shown in the sale proclamation as defaulters because there were no dues against them. Further, the report of the Tahsildar which was ex parse and with which the petitioners were never confronted, was factually incorrect and no proceedings for recovery could have been taken on the basis of that report. There was no material before the Tahsildar for his view that the family settlement/partition was fictitious. Further, the report of the Tahsildar which was ex parse and with which the petitioners were never confronted, was factually incorrect and no proceedings for recovery could have been taken on the basis of that report. There was no material before the Tahsildar for his view that the family settlement/partition was fictitious. Alternatively, it was contended, assuming that some amounts were also due from Hari Babu and Maharaj Singh, the same could not be recovered without serving a writ of demand or citation on them. In any case, the dues alleged to be outstanding against different defaulters, could not be clubbed together nor the properties belonging to different defaulters or their shares therein could have been put to auction under a single proclamation assuming that the properties were ancestral. The clubbing of the dues outstanding against others with those of Radhey Shyam in drawing up a single proclamation was a material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale and the same cannot be sustained in law. Yet, another argument was that the house properties are located within the municipal limits of Shikohabad and the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were not applicable under which the proceedings for recovery were taken. The last argument was that properties worth several lacs, were sold for an amount of Rs.85,000/- only. which is wholly unsustainable. 9. We have heard the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the auction purchasers. 10. In order to appreciate the case put forward for the petitioners, we may refer to S. 286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which reads thus : "Power to proceed against interest of defaulter in other immovable property (1) If any arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered by any of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of S. 279, the Collector may realise 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 he recovered by process under this section from any immovable property of the defaulter including any holding of which he is a bhumidhar, or asami." 11. (2) Sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue but not due in respect of any specific land, may he recovered by process under this section from any immovable property of the defaulter including any holding of which he is a bhumidhar, or asami." 11. Now one of the conditions precedent to the applicability of S. 286 is that the immovable property sought to be proceeded against must be of the defaulter or the defaulter has an interest therein. The Collector who seeks to proceed with attachment and sale, is obliged to ascertain that such property belongs to the defaulter. In other words, a Collector will have no jurisdiction to proceed against an immovable property belonging to a person other than a defaulter or by wrongly treating it as property belonging to the defaulter. In our opinion, to fulfil that condition precedent it was necessary for the Collector to have decided the objections filed by the petitioners which was not done in the instant case. The report of the Tahsildar to the effect that the claim of the partition was fictitious is of no avail, inasmuch as, the petitioners were not confronted with that report nor they were heard by the Tahsildar before that report was drawn up. The investigation and the decision on the objections is not an empty formality but is it quasi-judicial process involving reasoned decision by the statutory functionary after hearing the affected party. The decision must show the application of mind by the concerned authority and the application of mind should be reflected in the order that is passed in deciding the objections. A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Narain v. Collector, 1970 UPTC 143 while deciding a case under the corresponding provisions contained in the U.P. Land Revenue Act in a matter relating to recovery of sales tax dues. That decision was followed by another Division Bench in Smt. Sumeria v. State of U.P., 1981 UPTC 1167. The ratio descidendi of these cases is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. Before resort can be taken to S. 286 another pre-requisite condition is that the arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered any one of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of S. 279. The ratio descidendi of these cases is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. 12. Before resort can be taken to S. 286 another pre-requisite condition is that the arrears of land revenue cannot be recovered any one of the processes mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of S. 279. It can be contended with considerable merits that the expression "cannot be recovered" does not mean that the Collector must in every case have recourse first to the methods mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of S. 279, in order that an action under that section could be sustained. However, in our opinion, the least that is required is that the Collector must be satisfied while taking action under S. 286 without actually taking resort to other modes that the arrears cannot be recovered from the defaulter in any other manner except by attachment and sale of immovable property. On the facts of the present case. it is difficult to accept that the Collector could entertain such a belief. Admittedly, the name of Hari Babu, petitioner No. 1 as defaulter was included in the sale proclamation because a sum of Rs. 56/- was allegedly due on account of rent (lagan) for which he was jointly and severally liable along with his other four brothers. 13. There is nothing to show in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector and Tahsildar, that Hari Babu or anyone of his other brothers were called upon to pay the amount of Rs. 56/-. If recourse had been taken to cl. (a) of S. 279, we cannot perceive that the amount could not have been recovered. Clause (a) of S. 279 provides that the land revenue may be recovered by serving a writ of demand or citation to appear on the defaulter. Having regard to the smallness of the amount, the Collector, in our opinion, was not justified in straightway proceeding with the attachment and sale of the house properties only for the recovery of Rs. 56/- and treating Hari Babu as a defaulter. 14. There is another aspect of the matter which requires our consideration. The jurisdiction of the Collector to attach and sell the immovable property of the defaulter is not arbitrary or uncontrolled. 56/- and treating Hari Babu as a defaulter. 14. There is another aspect of the matter which requires our consideration. The jurisdiction of the Collector to attach and sell the immovable property of the defaulter is not arbitrary or uncontrolled. In every case, he is required to apply his mind as to what extent it is necessary to sell the attached property which would be sufficient to recover the arrears due against a defaulter. The action of attachment and the sale of property wholly disproportionate to the amount sought to be recovered, would be an action without jurisdiction, which is liable to be struck down. In Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao, (1989) 4 JT 50 : AIR 1990 SC 119 at p. 120, the Supreme Court observed as under :- "It is of importance to note from this provision that in all execution proceedings, the Court has to first decide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the Court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provisions of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the Court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction." 15. Although the above observations were made while considering a case under O. XXI, R. 64 o the Civil Procedure Code which deals with the power of the executing court of attachment and sale of the property to satisfy the decree, we see no reason why the same rule should not hold good when the Collector is acting under S. 286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Unfortunately, no attempt was made by the statutory functionary and it was not even thought of whether it was necessary to put to auction the proportionate share of Hari Babu in all the house properties that were sold, and for that matter, the proportionate share of other brothers also against whom on the concerned respondents own showing a sum of Rs. 56/- alone was due assuming the properties were joint. For a paltry sum of Rs. 56/- the Collector has blindly sold the entire share of petitioner No. 1 in all the house properties, which was clearly without jurisdiction and cannot he sustained. 16. There is yet another aspect which compels us to hold that the impugned auction sale is liable to be set aside. It was not disputed that separate recovery certificates were issued in respect of the amount due against petitioner No. 1 as also the amount due against petitioners No. 2 and 3 respectively. No statutory provision or rule was brought to our notice under which the Collector is permitted to club several recovery certificates against different defaulters and to issue a single sale proclamation. It is so even where the property sought to be proceeded against is the joint property of all the defaulters. As noticed earlier, the Collector compounded the recovery certificates and issued a single sale proclamation in respect of the aggregate amount as recoverable against all the defaulters. This, in our opinion, could not be done. A similar situation arose before a Division Bench of this Court in the Lase of Precision Instruments (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, (1976) 104 ITR 723 , a matter relating to the recovery of income-tax dues, where it was observed : "None of the Rules in the Second Schedule permit the Tax Recovery Officer to club together recovery certificate issued against the assessee with recovery certificate issued against another, and to issue a single sale proclamation in respect of dues against two separate assessees. We have already noticed the scheme of the Rules. Rule 2 talks of issue of notice to the defaulter. Obviously, the notice issued to the defaulter on the basis of the recovery certificate must be in respect of arrears the method of distribution of the proceeds of the execution are set out. Under Cl. (1) the Income-tax Officer is paid the cost incurred by him, under Cl. Rule 2 talks of issue of notice to the defaulter. Obviously, the notice issued to the defaulter on the basis of the recovery certificate must be in respect of arrears the method of distribution of the proceeds of the execution are set out. Under Cl. (1) the Income-tax Officer is paid the cost incurred by him, under Cl. (b), the Income-tax Officer is paid the amount due under the certificate in execution of which the amounts are realised. Now, if a sale proclamation is drawn up clubbing together dues under two certificates which relate not to one but to two defaulters, the result would be that the sale proceeds of the property of one defaulter would be utilised under R. 8(b) for payment of dues of another assessee. To put such an interpretation on R. 8(b) would be ascribing unreasonableness on the part of the legislature. This apart, the Act does not contemplate sale of properties of an assessee for recovery of dues of another assessee. Rule 53 sets out the contents of the sale proclamation and, under cl. (c), the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered has to be stated. In the sequence in which R. 53 occurs, it is obvious that the amount of which it talks could only mean the amount due against the assessee whose properties are being sold. In the present case, the sale proclamation mentions not only the amount due against the petitioner-assessee but also the amount due against its managing director. Thus, the sale proclamation is contrary to the provisions of R. 53." 17. The scheme of rules in the second schedule attached to Income-tax Act, 1961 referred in the above case is in pari-materia with the corresponding provisions contained in the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1951 and Rr. 281 to 286 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1952. The provisions analogous to R. 8 of the second schedule to Income-tax Act is contained in R. 285N of the said Act. In view of the rule laid in the case of Precision Instruments, (1977 Tax LR 189 (All) (supra), with which we agree, the sale proclamation is not in accordance with law and the sale of properties consequent thereto is invalid. 18. In view of the rule laid in the case of Precision Instruments, (1977 Tax LR 189 (All) (supra), with which we agree, the sale proclamation is not in accordance with law and the sale of properties consequent thereto is invalid. 18. The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner by his impugned order has rejected the objections of the petitioners summarily by saying that the sale proclamation had the due sanction of the Collector and a copy of it was duly served on the defaulters. He did not consider the question relating to material irregularity and mistake in publishing or conducting the sale. The impugned orders, thus, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. 19. For what has been stated above, the impugned auction sale is quashed. It shall be open to the Collector to proceed afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 20. The Petitioners shall be entitled to their costs.