Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2148 (ALL)

Ravi Prakash Singh v. Board Of Revenue

2024-09-26

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ashutosh Srivastava, J. Order on Civil Misc. Application No. Nil of 2024: 1.This is an application seeking correction in the name of the respondent No.6. 2. The application is formal in nature, not opposed, allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 is permitted to make necessary correction in the name of the respondent No. 6 in the writ petition during the course of the day. Order on Civil Misc. Application No. 6639 of 2017 and Order on Writ Petition: 1.Heard Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shikhar Kaushal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. The Civil Misc. Application No. 6639 of 2017 dated 5.1.2017 has been filed at the instance of respondent No. 6, Umesh Kumar Garg, son of Charan Das, resident of B-181, Ashok Nagar, Ghaziabad with a prayer that the instant petition be allowed and the hard earned money deposited by the respondent No. 6, being the highest bidder in the auction held by the respondent No. 5 for recovery of its dues in respect of the financial assistance granted to the petitioner be released in favour of the respondent No. 6 along with the interest. 3. The application has been pressed by Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shikhar Kaushal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 4. It is contended by Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 20.10.2014 passed by the respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow in Revision No. 21/2005-2006 (Ravi Prakash Singh versus State of U.P. and others) whereby and whereunder the revision was dismissed and the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut rejecting the objections of the petitioner registered as Misc. Application No.1/2004-2005 (Ravi Prakash Singh versus Pradeshiya Industrial and Investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh and others) under Rule 285 (I) U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 has been upheld. A challenge has also been made to the order dated 15.10.2004. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner is the Promoter and Director of one company, namely, M/s Twin Pack Industries Limited, Ghaziabad. A challenge has also been made to the order dated 15.10.2004. 5. It is further contended that the petitioner is the Promoter and Director of one company, namely, M/s Twin Pack Industries Limited, Ghaziabad. The company had availed financial assistance to the tune of Rs.129.90 lacs, which was provided by the respondent No. 5. The petitioner failed to repay the said financial assistance and an auction was held of the residential property of the petitioner. The petitioner functioned as a guarantor to the financial assistance extended by the respondent No. 5. When the company failed to clear the financial dues, the respondent No. 5 proceeded against the private assets of the petitioner and proceeded to auction his residential house situate at KI-10, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. 6. Objections under Rule 285 (I) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 were filed on the ground that the private assets of the petitioner could not be resorted to for recovery of an amount due against the company. The objections were rejected and the revision against the same was also rejected. This Court while entertaining the writ petition vide order dated 10.12.2014 was pleased to issue notices to the respondent No. 5 granting it one month time to file counter affidavit. At the same time, the auction sale, said to have been taken place on 15.10.2004, was directed not to be confirmed. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that during pendency of the writ petition, the entire outstanding dues of the respondent No. 5 was cleared by the company M/s Twin Pack Industries Limited, Ghaziabad under One Time Settlement Policy flouted by the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5 has issued a No Dues Certificate dated 30.5.2023 in favour of the borrower company M/s Twin Pack Industries Limited, Ghaziabad. The No Due Certificate dated 30.5.2023 has been filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as Annexure-SA1 to the supplementary affidavit dated 30.6.2023. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the respondent No. 6, namely, Umesh Kumar Garg had participated in the auction proceedings held on 15.10.2004 and was declared the highest bidder. The respondent No. 6 deposited a sum of Rs. 40.50 lacs towards the bid. The said amount is stated to have been deposited with the registry of the State. 8. 7. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the respondent No. 6, namely, Umesh Kumar Garg had participated in the auction proceedings held on 15.10.2004 and was declared the highest bidder. The respondent No. 6 deposited a sum of Rs. 40.50 lacs towards the bid. The said amount is stated to have been deposited with the registry of the State. 8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the auction proceedings held on 15.10.2004 was directed to be not confirmed by the order of this Court dated 10.12.2014. He further submits that respondent No. 6 had already deposited a sum of Rs.40.50 lacs pursuant to the auction proceedings on being declared the highest bidder. Since, the auction proceedings have not been confirmed and in fact, the amount of the outstanding for which the auction was held, has already been deposited by the company, the amount deposited by the respondent No. 6 is liable to be refunded along with interest. 9. Learned Senior Counsel has also invited the attention to the affidavit filed by the State-respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, particularly, to Paragraph 24 of the affidavit sworn by Hanuman Prasad, son of Shri Ram Sewak Maurya, the then Tehsildar Sadar, District Ghaziabad, which reflects that the respondent No. 6 had deposited the amount of Rs.40.50 lacs under rules within time. 10. It is vehemently contended by Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel that admittedly, the amount is lying with the State- respondents or with the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 6 is liable to be refunded the said amount along with reasonable interest. The application seeking refund of the amount has not been controverted or opposed. 11. I have heard Shri C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shikhar Kaushal, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 as also Shri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent. 12. The petitioner as also the State-respondents are in common ground that dues of the respondent No. 5 have been cleared and No Due Certificate has been issued by the respondent No. 5. They are also on common ground that the auction proceedings held on 15.10.2004 were not confirmed. Admittedly, the respondent No. 6 had deposited a sum of Rs.40.50 lacs with the respondents pursuant to the auction proceedings having been declared the highest bidder. 13. They are also on common ground that the auction proceedings held on 15.10.2004 were not confirmed. Admittedly, the respondent No. 6 had deposited a sum of Rs.40.50 lacs with the respondents pursuant to the auction proceedings having been declared the highest bidder. 13. In the opinion of the Court, once the auction proceedings have not been confirmed and the dues of the respondent No. 5 stands discharged, the highest bidder is liable to be refunded the amount deposited by him. However, it is not clear as to whether the amount is lying with the State-respondents or with the respondent No. 5. 14. In the opinion of the Court, no further prosecution is required to be done in the instant writ petition and the same has been rendered infructuous. 15. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of by requiring the Collector/District Magistrate, District Ghaziabad to examine the matter of release of the amount deposited by the respondent No. 6 consequent to the auction held on 15.10.2004 which was never confirmed, at his own level, determine whether the amount is lying with the State Treasury or with the respondent No. 5 and after determining the said fact, pass appropriate orders for release of the amount deposited by the respondent No. 6 in his favour awarding suitable interest thereon, expeditiously, preferably within a period of Two Months from the date of service of certified copy of the order of this Court. 16. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition along with the Civil Misc. Application No. 6639 of 2017 stand disposed of No order as to costs.