JUDGMENT

K. B. Asthana, J. - The petitioner Raja Yadvendra Dutt Dubey owned a large estate in the district of Jaunpur. He was assessed to agricultural income-tax and was ordered to deposit. a sum of Rs. 6,466/-. towards the tax due for 1358 Fasli and another sum of Rs. 33,289/8/6 for the year 1359 Fasli. He applied to the officer concerned that the above said amounts he deducted from the compensation payable to him as a consequence, of the vesting of his estate under the provisions. of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. it appears that his prayer was accepted by the Collector. of Jaunpur who ordered in July 1958 to deduct the above amount of the tax for the two years from the compensation payable to the petitioner. The compensation Officer in accordance the orders of the collector deducted the said amounts and a voucher was prepared in satisfaction of payment of the tax dues. However after lapse of about three years, in 1961 the petitioner received a communication from the Compensation. Officer intimating that the deduction made earlier from the Compensation roll was against the rules and the voucher in payment of the tax would be deemed to be cancelled. The Collector of Jaunpur then seems to have ordered that the amount due as tax for the 1358 and 1359 F. be realised from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. The validity and the legality of the above said proceedings, which took place in 1961, have been questioned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

2. It is not disputed by the opposite parties, that is, Compensation Officer, Shahganj, the Collector, Jaunpur and the State of Uttar Pradesh, that in 1958 the Collector did pass an order for deduction of the tax amount from the compensation payable to the petitioner and that a voucher in satisfaction of the payment of the tax was issued. The stand which has been taken on behalf of the opposite parties is that in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules 1952 the deduction for any amount due as arrears of agricultural income-tax could only be made from the interim compensation payable to the petitioner as he had been assessed to a land revenue of more than rupees ten thousand per annum. It is further stated that no final compensation roll having been prepared any deduction before finalisation of the compensation roll was illegal. I have to examine how far this stand of the opposite parties is justified in law.

3. Sri K.B.L. Guar appearing for the petitioner raised two contentions in support of the petition. His first contention was that the Collector when the ordered the deduction in the year 1958 acted competently as he had the power to order deduction under Section 6(d) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the amounts of tax being due on the basis of assessment for the years prior to the date of vesting and that a voucher for satisfaction having been issued the tax would be deemed to have been paid and no further demand could be made. His second contention was that in any view of the matter after once having accorded satisfaction in respect of payment of tax the Compensation Officer or for the matter of that the Collector of Jaunpur had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and demand a fresh deposit from the petitioner.

4. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner it has been clearly averred that the compensation roll which has been prepared shows the deduction which had been made and the petitioner has been awarded certain amount as compensation after deducting the amounts due from him as agricultural income-tax for the years 1358 and 1359 Fs.

5. I have no doubt in my mind that the provisions of Section 6(d) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act conferred upon the Collector as the agent of the State Government as the agent of the State Government a wide discretion in the matter. He may, without prejudice to any other mode of recover