Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2861 (ALL)

RAM ASREY v. COLLECTOR, BANDA

2009-08-18

TARUN AGARWALA

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. List of hearing cases has been revised. The learned counsels for the private respondents are not present. 2. The petitioner is a landless labourer and took a loan from the Bank for purchasing a pumping set. The petitioner committed a default and, accordingly, his land was attached and sold by public auction, in which, the bid of the respondent No. 5 was found to be the highest. The auction sale was consequently confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banda, the respondent No. 2, by its order dated 31st May, 1988. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the confirmation of the sale, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Amongst the other grounds raised by the petitioner, this Court is confining the submission to only one ground, namely, that the sale could not have been confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and could only have been confirmed by the Collector, as contemplated under Rule 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 4. In Ajay Upadhayay v. Collector, Ballia and others, 2008 (26) LCD 623, a Division Bench of this Court, after analysing various Government Orders, issued from time to time, held that the Sub-Divisional Officer/the Deputy Collector had no power to confirm or set aside the sale, and was only given the power to conduct the same. The Division Bench held that the power to confirm or set aside the sale only lies with the Collector, and to no other authority. Similar view was again held by another Division Bench in Ram Awadh Tiwari v. Sudarshan Tiwari and others, 2008 (6) ALJ 24. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Sub-Divisional Authority dated 31st May, 1988 confirming the sale is patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Collector to pass a fresh order on the alleged auction sale after hearing the objections raised by the petitioner. ————