Case: The Padrauna Rajkrishna Sugar Works Limited &amp; Others Vs. The Land Reforms Commissioner, U.P. &amp; Others

which they are to be recovered, that is to say, without indicating whether it would be recovered from the usufruct of the property or by its sale or by mortgage or lease."The provisions of the Act which authorise recovery of sums of money as arrears of land revenue do not require the Collector to follow any sequence of the processes for recovery : it is competent to the Collector to resort to any process prescribed by Section 279 in aid of recovery of the dues which are recoverable as arrears or land revenue. It is unnecessary in the circumstances to consider whether the provisions of Section 286 (1) are mandatory or directory.12. It was urged in the alternative that after selling the immovable property which realized more than Rs. 23,50,000 the Collector should not have sold the movable property, for the claim for which the properties of the Company were put up for sale was only Rs. 8,38,176-13-0. At first blush there is force in this argument. Why the Collector thought it necessary to sell the movables after the immovable property was knocked down to the Cawnpore Sugar Works Ltd., for Rs. 23,50,000 was never explained. After the immovable property belonging to the Company was knocked down to the purchasers for an amount of Rs. 23,50,000 it was apparently not necessary to hold the auction for sale of moveables valued at Rs. 7,64,817 and to accept a bid of only Rs. 2,75,000. The argument that the movables were of no use to any person other than the purchaser of immovable property is without substance. The moveables sold were the tools and workshop plant, mill stores, spare parts and furniture, and it is difficult to accept the contention that these movables were of no value except to the purchaser.But the Company raised no contention in this behalf before the Commissioner, nor in the petition before the High Court. The question was also not argued before the High Court in that form. We cannot at this stage investigate the reasons why movables valued at Rs. 7,64,817 were put up for sale and sold when it was not necessary to sell them to realise the dues.13. It was then urged that the Income-tax Officer had, by intimation dated December 11, 1954, asked the Collector to stay the sale proceeding for recovery of income-tax dues amounting to Rupees 81,821-2-0. For some reason, which is not clear from the record, the Collector ignored the intimation given by the Income-tax Officer and proceeded to put the property to sale. He included the amount in the sale proclamation, overruling the protests of the Company, and sold the properties for recovery of a consolidated amount which included Rupees 81,821-2-0 due as income-tax. But on that account the sale is not illegal or irregular. An amount exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs was recoverable for the sugar-cane cess and the cane price and the immovable property of the Company could have been put up for sale for recovery of those dues. The sale is not proved to be vitiated on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it, and it is therefore not liable to be set aside. "14. It was finally contended that the Company was prevented from exercising its right under Rule 285-H of the rules framed under U. P. Act 1 of 1951, because the purchaser at the sale was appointed, by order of the Central Government, Authorised Controller of the factory of the Company, and all the properties of the Company were put in the possession of the purchaser, and that the Company was unable to raise the requisite amount to be deposited under R. 285-H. Under Rule 285-H any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collectors office:(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money; and(b) for payment on account of the arrear, the amount specified in the proclamation in Z. A. Form 74 as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been paid on that account; and(c) the cost of the sale.If the deposit is made, the collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale. It was open to the company under R. 285-H even after the bids were accepted to deposit 5 per cent of the sum realised by sale of the immovable property and to pay the amount due for the recovery of which the sale was ordered and the cost of the sale. But no attempt was made to deposit the amounts mentioned in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 285-H. The contention that the Company was unable to make the deposit under Rule 285-H because the purchaser was appointed Authorised Controller was also not raised before the commissioner and the High Court. The argument that if the movable property had not been sold, the company may have raised the amount liable to be deposited under clauses (a), (b) and (c), but by sale of those properties and purchase of the same by a person who was shortly after the purchase appointed the Authorised controller prevented the Company from exercising the right under Rule 285 is hypothetical. Again even that argument was not raised before the commissioner, nor in the petition, nor in the arguments before the High Court. Evidently, the Company was required to comply with the provisions of Rule 285-H for having the sale set aside to deposit an amount of Rupees 9,50,000 besides the cost of the sale. Even if the movables had not been sold, and assuming that they were of the value of Rs. 7,64,817 the movables were not sufficient to enable the Company to raise the amount required for deposit under Rule 285-H.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]For some reason, which is not clear from the record, the Collector ignored the intimation given by the Income-tax Officer and proceeded to put the property to sale. He included the amount in the sale proclamation, overruling the protests of the Company, and sold the properties for recovery of a consolidated amount which included Rupees 81,821-2-0 due as income-tax. But on that account the sale is not illegal or irregular. An amount exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs was recoverable for the sugar-cane cess and the cane price and the immovable property of the Company could have been put up for sale for recovery of those dues. The sale is not proved to be vitiated on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it, and it is therefore not liable to be set aside. "14.It was finally contended that the Company was prevented from exercising its right under Rule 285-H of the rules framed under U. P. Act 1 of 1951, because the purchaser at the sale was appointed, by order of the Central Government, Authorised Controller of the factory of the Company, and all the properties of the Company were put in the possession of the purchaser, and that the Company was unable to raise the requisite amount to be deposited under R. 285-H.We are, therefore, unable to agree with the opinion expressed by Jagdish Sahai, J., that the use of the words "under this section" points to the applicability of the whole section i.e.(1) in the recovery dues recoverable under(2) of section 286, and "that the twohave got to be read together and the effect of(2) is that even in connection with the recovery of miscellaneous dues as arrears of land revenue it is permissible to sell immovable property of the defaulter but subject to what is provided for ine provisions of the Act which authorise recovery of sums of money as arrears of land revenue do not require the Collector to follow any sequence of the processes for recovery : it is competent to the Collector to resort to any process prescribed by Section 279 in aid of recovery of the dues which are recoverable as arrears or land revenue. It is unnecessary in the circumstances to consider whether the provisions of Section 286 (1) are mandatory orargument that the movables were of no use to any person other than the purchaser of immovable property is without substance. The moveables sold were the tools and workshop plant, mill stores, spare parts and furniture, and it is difficult to accept the contention that these movables were of no value except to the purchaser.But the Company raised no contention in this behalf before the Commissioner, nor in the petition before the High Court. The question was also not argued before the High Court in that form. We cannot at this stage investigate the reasons why movables valued at Rs. 7,64,817 were put up for sale and sold when it was not necessary to sell them to realise theon that account the sale is not illegal or irregular. An amount exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs was recoverable for thecess and the cane price and the immovable property of the Company could have been put up for sale for recovery of those dues. The sale is not proved to be vitiated on the ground of any material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it, and it is therefore not liable to be set aside.any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collectors office