Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2950 (ALL)

RAM PRASAD v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-12-15

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—Instructions as have been received by the learned Standing Counsel are being taken on record. 2. An auction was held on 15.1.1998 wherein the petitioner was held to be the highest bidder. An objection under Section 285(I) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the 1952 Rules’) was filed by the mortgager. This objection was rejected by the Commissioner on 8.5.2002. Aggrieved by the order dated 8.5.2002, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 the erstwhile owners of the land filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The revision was number as Revision No. 60 of 2002. Suddenly, when the revision was proceeding, it was discovered that the same had been got dismissed as not pressed on account of the fact that the Sub Divisional Officer on 14.8.2002 had cancelled the auction which had taken place on 15.1.1998. 3. The petitioner upon gaining knowledge about the order dated 14.8.2002 applied before the Sub Divisional Officer for getting a copy of it. On 3.9.2002, however, the application was rejected and the certified copy was not issued to him saying that the order dated 14.8.2002 was just a note. However, since the order dated 14.8.2002 continued to exist the auction was not being confirmed. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the instant writ petition and prayed that the auction which had taken place on 15.1.1998 be confirmed and a sale certificate be issued to the petitioner with regard to the plot which he had bought. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the objections which were filed by the erstwhile land owner were rejected on 8.5.2002 and the revision was also got dismissed as not pressed by him then there was no other option with the Collector but to confirm the auction as per Rule 285 (J). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when once the objections which were filed by the erstwhile land owner were rejected on 8.5.2002 and the revision was also got dismissed as not pressed by him then there was no other option with the Collector but to confirm the auction as per Rule 285 (J). Since the learned counsel for the petitioner read out the Rule 285(J), the same is being reproduced here as under : “285-J. On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale if no such application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I, has been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the provisions of Section 154. Every order passed under this rule shall be final.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, however, in reply submitted that since the sale price was very low, the auction was correctly set aside. 6. Learned Standing Counsel produced certain written instructions which were called for by him from the state officials and in it a note is there of the Tehsildaar dated 14.8.2002 which was accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer that the property was valued on the lower side at the time of the auction. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that under Rule 285(I), the sale could have been set aside only on the ground that some material irregularity or mistake had occurred in the publication of the advertisement or there was an irregularity in the auction. Further, it has been provided in the Rule that no sale can be set aside merely on the ground that the publication of the advertisement was wrongly done unless the applicant is able to satisfy the Commissioner that he had sustained substantial injury because of the irregularities and mistakes. Further, it has been provided in the Rule that no sale can be set aside merely on the ground that the publication of the advertisement was wrongly done unless the applicant is able to satisfy the Commissioner that he had sustained substantial injury because of the irregularities and mistakes. Since, learned counsel read out Rule 285 (I) of the 1952 Rules, it is being reproduced here as under : “285-I. (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake. (ii) ................ (iii)The order of the Commissioner passed under this rule shall be final.” 8. Rule 285(I) says that the order of the Commissioner shall be final. In the instant case, after the fall of the hammer, the auction was complete. The erstwhile land owners, the respondent No. 5 and 6 had a right to object under Section 285(I) which they did and the Commissioner had turned down the objection on 8.5.2002. Even though the order of the commissioner was final, a revision was filed which was also withdrawn. 9.Under such circumstances, I hold that the Sub Divisional Officer had absolutely no authority to pass the order dated 14.8.2002. The order dated 14.8.2002 was passed under absolutely no provisions of law. Therefore, the same is quashed. 10. The writ petition is allowed. The auction and the sale shall be confirmed and a Sale Certificate to that effect shall also be issued. 11. Admittedly, the amount which was paid by the auction purchaser was used to pay off the loan which the erstwhile landowner had taken from the State Bank of India. Since this loan was paid off the interest which would have accrued did not pile and the respondents were saved of the burden of paying the interest. 12. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would, however, be entitled to the remainder of the amount which might be with the State Authorities and they shall be at liberty to claim the remainder amount under Rule 285(N) of the 1952 Rules. 13. 12. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 would, however, be entitled to the remainder of the amount which might be with the State Authorities and they shall be at liberty to claim the remainder amount under Rule 285(N) of the 1952 Rules. 13. Further, it shall always be open to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to avail any such remedy which might be available to them under law against the sale.