JUDGMENT Sudhir Narain, J. - The appellant along with one Akhtar Ali took a loan of Rs. 68500 from Bank of Baroda, Khod Branch, the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) for purchasing a tractor. Before the loan was granted the appellant had mortgaged his agricultural bhunidhari plot No. 282 Ka. area 8.59 acres, while Akhtar Ali mortgaged his Bhunidhari agricultural land of plot No. 254/363 area 3.59 acres, situate in village S hariya Lakha, pargana and Tahsil Suar, District Rampur, with the Bank. 2. Neither the appellant nor Akhtar Ali paid any amount towards satisfaction of the loan. The Bank forwarded to the Collector, Rampur, a certificate specifying the amount of loan due against the debtors. On receipt of the certificate from the Bank a citation was issued to the appellant oh 10th December, 1987. The appellant did not pay the amount of loan. 3. On 23th September, 1991, the Sub-Division Officer, Suar. District Rampur made a declaration under Rule 273 of the U.P.Z. A, and L.R. Act that in lieu of sum of Rs. 1,20,477 due against the appellant his Bhunidhari agricultural land comprising in khata No. 159, plot No. 282 ka, area 8.59 acres, has been attached. Subsequently, on 25th November, 1991 another sale proclamation was issued mentioning therein that land of khata No. 136, plot No. 104, area 0.972 acre, situate in village Miiak Ratua Nagia, Tahsil Suar, District Rampur, belonging to the appellant shall be sold in auction to be held on 26th December, 1991. On the said date, auction was held at Tahsil Suar and plot No. 104 measuring 2.40 acres, situate in village Milak Ratua Naglawas sold for a sum of Re. 1 in favour of the Collector, Rampur, as there was no bidder available at the time of auction proceeding held on 26th December, 1991. 4. The appellant challenged the said auction sale dated 26th December, 1991 and the sale proclamation dated 25th December, 1991 by filing writ petition No. 3941 of 1992 The learned Judge dismissed the said writ petition taking the view that the points raised by the petitioner involved questions of fact and the petitioner had alternative remedy. 5. In this appeal, the appellant has filed deed dated 28th September, 1985 which indicates that plot No. 282-Ka (8.59 acres) and plot No. 254/363 (3.59 acres) total 12.18 acres were mortgaged with the Bank. 5. In this appeal, the appellant has filed deed dated 28th September, 1985 which indicates that plot No. 282-Ka (8.59 acres) and plot No. 254/363 (3.59 acres) total 12.18 acres were mortgaged with the Bank. The amount of loan was sought to be recovered against the appellant as arrears of revenue as provided under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (for short the Act). Section 4(2)(b) of the Act provides that where the property of any person referred to in Section 3 is subject to any mortgage, charge, pledge or other encumbrance in favour of the State Government, the Corporation, a Government company or banking company, then : "In every case of a mortgage, charge or other encumbrance on immovable property, such property or, as the case may be, the interest of the defaulter therein, shall first be sold in proceedings for recovery of the sum due from that person as if it were an arrear of land revenue, and any other proceedings may be taken thereafter only if the Collector certifies that there is no prospect of realisation of the entire sum due through the first mentioned process within a reasonable time." 6. In this case the land of the appellant was already mortgaged and charged with the Bank. There is nothing to show that the Collector had issued any certificate that there was no prospect of realisation of the entire sum due from the property mortgaged or charged with the Bank. The appellant has filed a copy of the declaration (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) showing that plot No. 282-ka, area 8.59 acres was attached. There is no reason why this plot which was already mortgaged with the bank could not be sold. 7. In Gayan Singh and others v. Kanpur Development Authority, 1991 Ald. CJ 71, a Division Bench of this Court while interpreting Section 4(2) (b) of the Act observed : "the scheme of the act is clear and unambiguous. It provides that where dues sought to be recovered are secured by a mortgage, charge or other encumbrance on immovable property the authority should first proceed to recover the dues from mortgaged property before resorting to any other mode of recovery." 8. Similar view was expressed in the case of Udal Pratap and another v. U.P. State Financial Corporation, Varanasi and others, 1978 Alld. Civil Nirnaya 6. 9. Similar view was expressed in the case of Udal Pratap and another v. U.P. State Financial Corporation, Varanasi and others, 1978 Alld. Civil Nirnaya 6. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case the auction sale held on 26th December, 1991 is quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to realise the amount due against the appellant and Akhtar Ali, first against the mortgaged property as mentioned above and in case it is found that the amount cannot be realised against the said mortgaged property as contemplated under Section 4(2)1 b) of the U.P. Pubic Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, the respondent No. 1 can proceed to recover the amount against other properties of the appellant or such other person who is under an obligation to pay the amount of loan taken by the appellant and Akhtar Ali. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.