By this writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution recovery proceedings in respect of agricultural income-tax dues are sought to be challenged. The only fact necessary to notice for purposes of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a house alleged to belong to the petitioner, namely, house No. 16, Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad, is sought to be sold for realisation of agricultural income-tax dues against one Radhe Shiam. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the provisions of section 279 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. By reference to the provisions of section, learned counsel has argued that before having recourse to the mode of recovery prescribed in section 279(f) the Collector was bound to exhaust the modes of recovery contained in sub-sections (a) to (e) to section 279. That is the only point which is raised before me by the learned counsel. I cannot see any force in the point as, to my mind, section 286, sub-section (2), is a complete answer to the learned counsels argument. That sub-section is to the following effect :
'Sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue, but not due in respect of any specific land, may be recovered under this section from any immoveable property of the defaulter.'
There is nothing at all in this sub-section to support learned counsels argument that before recourse is had to recovery from any immoveable property other modes of recovery should have been exhausted. There can be no question that what is being sought to be realised is recovery of agricultural income-tax dues as arrears of land revenue. The case is not one of recovery of land revenue itself. It may or may not be possible in the case of recovery of land revenue to proceed against any immoveable property of a defaulter other than the holdings or the property in respect of which the arrears of land revenue is due. That is not the case here and, therefore, even though in the case of realisation of arrears of land revenue the Collector may be bound in the first instance to exhaust such modes of recovery before proceeding against the other immoveable property of the defaulter, that clearly is not the case where recovery of sums of money as arrears of land revenue is concerned. There is, therefore, no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs.