Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1977 DIGILAW 363 (ALL)

Krishna Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1977-07-23

ASHWINI KUMAR

body1977
JUDGMENT Ashwini Kumar, Member - These are two Revision Petitions filed by Smt. Krishna Devi widow of Munni Lal under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the orders dated 7-11-1973 and 5-2-1974 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in a case of sale of property for recovery of Government dues as arrears of Land Revenue. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in pursuance of a Recovery Certificate issued in respect of the unpaid industrial loan by Sri Munni Lal, his house situated in the Dehradun town was attached and put to auction sale. The highest bid was Rs. 20,500/- by Pritam Singh, and the Collector referred the same to the Commissioner for confirmation. In the Commissioner's court, Munni Lal filed an objection under Rule 285-1 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The case was decided ex parte by the Commissioner vide his order dated 17-11-1973, and the sale was confirmed. Meanwhile, Munni Lal had died. His widow Smt. Krishna Devi moved a restoration application dated 7-1-1974. It seems that the Commissioner condoned the delay in moving the restoration application and restored the case. However, through his order dated 5-2-1974, he rejected the objections against the sale and confirmed the sale. 3. The two Revision Petitions under consideration are directed against the above mentioned orders of the Commissioner dated 7-11-1973 and 5-2-1974. Obviously, the Commissioner's ex parte order dated 7-11-1973 has merged in his subsequent order dated 5-2-1974, and hence no Revision Petition would lie against the Commissioner's order dated 17-11-1973. The first petition is decided accordingly. 4. This leaves for decision Smt. Krishna Devi's Revision Petition against the Commissioner's order dated 5-2-1974. 5. The learned counsel for the Revisionist contends that since the house in question is situated within the Dehradun town, the provisions of the UP ZA & LR Act do not apply to it & hence the present proceedings which have been undertaken under the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are void ab initio. His next contention is that irregularity has been committed in the auction sale of the house inasmuch as due publicity of the sale was not made and the estimated value of the house was not indicated in the sale proclamation in terms of rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. His next contention is that irregularity has been committed in the auction sale of the house inasmuch as due publicity of the sale was not made and the estimated value of the house was not indicated in the sale proclamation in terms of rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. In this connection, he draws my attention to the fact that the auction sale took place in the Court, and not on the spot, and only 5 bidders were present. He also argues that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 CPC are analogous to the provisions of Rules 282 and 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, and it has been held in Dr. S.L. Swing v. Lala Brij Gopal, AIR 1943 Oudh 204 that any breach of the provisions of the above said rule of the CPC makes the sale null and void. The learned counsel's last contention is that the estimated value of the house in question should have been calculated, as prescribed by Rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, in accordance with paras 477 and 478 of Chapter 15 of the Revenue Manual, but the estimated value of the house was not even mentioned in the sale proclamation. 6. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the Revisionist, but do not find them convincing. Sub-section (2) of Section 286 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act empowers the Collector to recover sums of money recoverable as arrears of land revenue from any immovable property of the defaulter including any holding of which he is bhumidhar, sirdar or asami. The Act does not restrict the location of such immovable property to those areas alone to which the provisions of the Act are applicable. In fact, sub-rule (2) of Rule 284 and Rules 285, 285-C & 285-H confirm that immovable property other than land and including a house or other building can be so attached and sold even if the immovable property is situated within the limits of a Military cantonment or Station. In fact, sub-rule (2) of Rule 284 and Rules 285, 285-C & 285-H confirm that immovable property other than land and including a house or other building can be so attached and sold even if the immovable property is situated within the limits of a Military cantonment or Station. Thus, the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules for recovery of arrears as arrears of Land Revenue are applicable to the attachment and sale of such immovable property also as is located in areas to which the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act does not apply, and it cannot be said that the present proceedings taken under these provisions of Law are void ab initio. It is also to be noticed that these provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and of the Rules made thereunder are comprehensive and self-contained and the provisions of Order 21 Rule 66 CPC are not relevant to them and cannot form the basis of any analogy. On the other hand, Rule 285- A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules clearly provides that an objection against the sale of property attached for recovery of arrears as arrears of land revenue may be filed merely on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in conducting the sale, but that no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the objector satisfies that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. The only irregularity which the learned counsel claims is that of non-calculation of the estimated value of house in question and the mention of such estimated value in the sale proclamation in terms of rule 233 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It is not denied that, in the Municipal Records, the assessment of the house in question is entered as Rs. 720/- only. At twenty times this amount, the capitalised value of the house comes to Rs. 14,400/- only, whereas the house has fetched the highest bid of Rs. 20,500/- which is nearly 30 times of the assessment value as entered in the Municipal records. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Revisionist has sustained any substantial injury by reason of the breach of the provisions of Rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The learned counsel's contention regarding due publicity of the sale through beat of drums etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Revisionist has sustained any substantial injury by reason of the breach of the provisions of Rule 283 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. The learned counsel's contention regarding due publicity of the sale through beat of drums etc. and the sale being conducted in the court and not on the spot does not have any weight. He himself admits that no Rules have been prescribed regarding publicity of such sale. The record shows that a copy of the proclamation was duly served on the defaulter himself, and that five bidders were present at the time of the auction sale. 7. In view of what is said above, this revision petition has no force and is hereby rejected. In the result, the confirmation of the auction sale in question already made by the Commissioner shall stand and the Collector shall proceed further in the matter as under the Law. 8. This order governs Revision Petitions Nos. 174 and 182 (LR) of 1973-74/Distt. Dehradun.