Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1220 (ALL)

LAXMI DEVI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2007-04-26

R.P.MISRA, SHISHIR KUMAR

body2007
( 1 ) WE have heard Sri Narendra Singh Chahar, learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE present writ petition has been filed quashing the order dated 19. 4. 2005 passed by respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) ONE Udaiveer Singh has taken loan and he defaulted in making the payment. The Bank forwarded a recovery certificate to the Collector for recovery of Rs. 98,213. 50p and if the recovery is not possible then the mortgaged property be auctioned. In pursuance of the auction dated 16. 2. 1998, the petitioner who was an auction purchaser, being a highest bidder, the bid of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents. The petitioner deposits the amount as directed by the respondents according to the provision of Rule 285-I of the Rules framed under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Sri Udaiveer Singh whose land has been auctioned has not preferred any objection. ( 4 ) ONE U. P. Rajkiya Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank filed an objection against the auction sale initiated by the District Authority mentioning therein that Udaiveer Singh has taken loan of Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-in the year 1988 and one third share of the aforesaid land was mortgaged to the Bank. The Additional Commissioner vide its order dated 27th September, 1990, has rejected the objection. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of Additional Commissioner, Agra Division the Bank filed a writ petition before this Court in which interim order was granted. Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 1612 of 1991 was dismissed by this Court on 18. 3. 2005. ( 6 ) PETITIONER submits that after dismissal of the writ petition, petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate stating therein that as the petitioner was an auction purchaser and the Banks objection has already been rejected and writ petition has also been dismissed, therefore, now no litigation is pending and the sale letter in favour of the petitioner may be issued. The respondent No. 4 by order dated 19. 4. 2005 has rejected the application and has cancelled the auction proceeding. The respondent No. 4 by order dated 19. 4. 2005 has rejected the application and has cancelled the auction proceeding. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the objection filed by the Bank has already been dismissed and the writ petition has also been dismissed, the person whose property has been purchased by the petitioner has not filed any objection, therefore, the application for execution of sale letter cannot be rejected and that too after a lapse of 16 years. From the perusal of the order passed by the respondent No. 4, it clearly appears that without taking into consideration the relevant records which is apparent from the order that prapatra Z. A. 73 and Z. A. 73-D and other relevant papers relating to auction were not available while deciding the case by respondent No. 4 but in spite of the aforesaid fact, after lapse of 16 years, only on the ground that as the property has been sold only in Rs. 17,000/- which appears to be less to the value of the property and there was an order of the District Magistrate dated 7. 2. 1989, therefore, it will not be appropriate to confirm the auction sale. The finding to the effect that as the auction has taken place on 16. 2. 1989, therefore, after a long period it will not be appropriate to accept the auction. ( 8 ) IT has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the records relating to the auction sale were not available it was incumbent on the part of the respondent No. 4 to summon those records and after perusal of the same, the orders should have been passed. In such situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 19. 4. 2005 is liable to be quashed. ( 9 ) WE have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. ( 10 ) FROM the record it is clear that the Banks writ petition has already been dismissed and the respondent No. 4 has not recorded any valid reason while cancelling the auction dated 16. 2. 1989. It is also apparent from the record that various papers were not available but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. 1989. It is also apparent from the record that various papers were not available but in spite of the aforesaid fact, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The respondent No. 4 has also not taken into consideration the various provisions like 285-C, 285-D, 285-E, 285-F and 285-I of the U. P. Zamindari and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. In our opinion, as no reason has been recorded while rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the order dated 19. 4. 2005, therefore, we are of the view that order dated 19. 4. 2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 4 to pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law after perusal of the relevant records relating to auction and will also give an opportunity to the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 is further directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. .