Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 116 (UTT)

Surendra Chemicals v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-21

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the auction proceedings and also the orders passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division and Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttarakhand. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner took a loan from U.P. Financial Corporation. Since, he defaulted in repayment of the loan, therefore, U.P. Financial Corporation decided to proceed for recovery of the amount due against the petitioner and, accordingly, recovery certificate was sent to the Collector. Tehsildar, Haridwar issued a recovery citation on 27.01.1988. Thereafter, a proclamation, as contemplated under Rule 285-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), was issued on 06.12.1989, pursuant to which, the assets belonging to the petitioner, mortgaged with U.P. Financial Corporation, were put to auction on 05.01.1990. Respondent no. 6 was the highest bidder with offer of Rs. 2,11,000/-, which was accepted. 3. On 05.01.1990, petitioner made an application to the District Magistrate/Collector, Haridwar to set-aside the auction sale and to fix some other future date for auction after giving due publicity. Thereafter, petitioner filed an objection under Rule 285-I of the Rules before the Commissioner for setting-aside the auction sale mainly on the ground that relevant provision of the Rules have not been complied with, which vitiates the auction proceedings and further that the auction proceedings were taken up behind his back without any information to him. 4. Learned Commissioner, Meerut Division rejected the objection vide order dated 16.02.1993, by holding that recovery citation was issued by the competent authority on 27.01.1988 and petitioner had given application to the Sub Divisional Officer/ Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar on 05.02.1988 for keeping the recovery proceedings in abeyance for two months, therefore that he had full knowledge about the recovery proceedings. It was further held by learned Commissioner that the property of the petitioner was put to auction on 05.01.1990 in accordance with the Rules after issuing the proclamation and further that Sub Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate is competent to conduct the auction sale for recovery of government dues under the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956. Petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before learned Additional Chief Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, which was rejected vide judgment & order dated 11.02.2009. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner, thereafter, filed revision before learned Additional Chief Commissioner, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, which was rejected vide judgment & order dated 11.02.2009. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the auction sale is vitiated for non compliance of mandatory provision of Rule 285-D of the Rules by the highest bidder (respondent no. 6). Rule 285-D is extracted below for ready reference: “285-D. The person declared to be the purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty-five per cent of the amount of his bid, and in default of such deposit the land shall forthwith be again put up and sold and such person shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and any deficiency of price which may occur on the re-sale which may be recovered from him by the collector as if same were an arrear of land revenue.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner had not deposited 25% of the bid amount with the fall of hammer, therefore, he was called upon to immediately deposit the same vide letter dated 22.02.1990 issued by S.D.M., Haridwar, which is on record as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. He further submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan through Legal Representatives Vs. Ranbir Singh and others reported in 1995 R.D. 240 has held that provisions contained in Rule 285-D of the Rules are mandatory. 8. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submits that the aforesaid letter dated 22.02.1990 is addressed to Mr. Sanjay Kumar S/o Mr. Ajay Bhagwan, who has no concern with respondent no. 6, as respondent no. 6 is represented by Mr. Brijesh Chand S/o Mr. Hukum Chand. He further submits that respondent no. 6 had deposited 25% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 52,750/-in cash on 05.01.1990 itself and, thereafter, the remaining 75% of the amount was deposited by him on 18.01.1990. Photocopies of the receipts issued by Tehsildar, Haridwar on 05.01.1990 and 18.01.1990 have been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6. This fact has been highlighted by respondent no. 6 in paragraph no.5 of his counter affidavit, which has not been disputed by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. 9. Photocopies of the receipts issued by Tehsildar, Haridwar on 05.01.1990 and 18.01.1990 have been annexed alongwith the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 6. This fact has been highlighted by respondent no. 6 in paragraph no.5 of his counter affidavit, which has not been disputed by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit. 9. A perusal of the objection filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the Rules reveals that the plea, regarding non compliance of Rule 285-D i.e deposit of 25% with the fall of the hammer, was not taken by the petitioner, therefore, whether such plea can be permitted to be raised, at this stage, is debatable. However, in view of the specific stand taken by respondent no. 6 in paragraph no. 5 of counter affidavit and also having regard to the receipts issued by Tehsildar, Haridwar on 05.01.1990 and 18.01.1990 to respondent no. 6, the contention raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 10. Thus, it can be safely inferred that provisions contained in Rules 285-D and 285-E of the Rules were duly complied with by respondent no. 6. 11. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity whatsoever in the auction proceedings, which may warrant interference in the matter. 12. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.