JUDGMENT

B.K. Tandon, Member. - This is a revision under Sec. 333 of the UPZA and LR Act against the order dated December 31, 1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division on an application filed by Durga Prasad and Bhaiya Lal under Rule 285(1) of the UPZA and LR Rules against the auction dated September 6, 1977 conducted by the Naib Tahsildar by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Naraini in realization of sales tax dues against Raja Bhaiya, opposite party No. 2 in the present revision.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that sales-tax dues amounting to Rs. 7324-55 alongwith interest were to be realised from Raja Bhaiya and for this purpose House No. 6, Ward No. 5 Bhiwani Ganj, Attarra was attached and put to auction. Against this, Durga Prasad and Bhaiya Lal made an application under Rule 285(1), UPZA and LR Rules against this auction before the Additional Commissioner contending that the house put to auction belonged to Durga Prasad and not to Raja Bhaiya. The Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that this was a frivolous application and, therefore, dismissed it.

3. The learned counsel for the revisionists argued that House No. 6 is Ward No. 5 was wrongly attached for the realisation of sales tax arrears on the basis of a wrong and incorrect Certificate dated December 25, 1975 issued by Sri Sant Kumar Agnihotri, the then Executive Officer. He alleged that the records were manipulated at the instance of the revenue authorities and in place of Durga Prasad the name of Raja Bhaiya was recorded without any inquiry or issuing any notice to the applicants. In support of his contention, he stated that the house tax in this town was imposed for the first time by notification No. 3892 dated July 19, 1975 and it was provided therein that the house tax will be imposed from August 1, 1975. This register was prepared as a consequence of this notification. While preparing this register, Raja Bhaiya was shown as owner of House No. 6. This entry was made without making any inquiry and without the knowledge of the applicant. When the applicant came to know about the attachment of the house, the applicant protested against it and the records of the Municipal Board, Atarra were corrected accordingly. He further argued that the applicants obtained certificate from the Municipal Board, Atarra saying that House No. 6 belonged to Durga Prasad and House No. 7 belonged to Bhaiya Lal. He further argued that this register was made for the first time and the entries in this register were made without obtaining any objections from the public. Therefore, according to him the entries previously made in this register without obtaining any objections from the public could not be relied upon. He further argued that the certificate subsequently issued by the Municipal Board, Atarra clearly showed that House No. 6 belonged to Durga Prasad and House No. 7 belonged to Bhaiya Lal and this cannot be attached to realise arrears of land revenue for dues against Raja Bhaiya. His other argument was that instead of House no. 6, House No. 7 has been attached and put to auction. He contended that this mistake is obvious from the serial numbers given in the House Tax Register of 1975-76 prepared by the Nagar Palika, Atarra. According to him, the numbering of Ward No. 5 starts from Bijlighar and the Bijlighar is entered as at Sl No. 1 in this register. According to him, this numbering of houses has been done from east to west and according to this House No. 6 will be on the eastern side and House No. 7 on the western side. In this connection he referred to the site plan prepared by the Naib Tahsildar and argued that this House No. 7 has been shown in the east and House No. 6 has been shown on the west. He argued that from this also it is obvious that the revenue authorities by mistake were auctioning House No. 7 instead of House No. 6. His third argument was that where there is question of injustice to any party, the court can always interfe