Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 782 (ALL)

Ravindra Singh v. State of U. P.

2024-03-12

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI

body2024
JUDGMENT Chandra Kumar Rai, J. Heard Mr. Rafiuddin Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case are that due to non payment of maintenance amount awarded under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the petitioner, the sale of agriculture holding of petitioner took place on 27.10.2005 under the order of Civil Judge (J.D.) Tilhar, Shahjahanpur dated 17.12.2004/22.7.2005, accordingly, sale certificate was issued on 2.9.2008 in favour of respondent no. 5. Petitioner filed an objection against the sale took place on 27.10.2005 under Rule 285-I of U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.Z.A & L.R Rules"). The aforementioned objection was registered as objection No. 35 of 2005-2006 before respondent No 3/Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly and the same was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 14.11.2007 passed by respondent No. 3. Petitioner challenged the order dated 14.11.2007 by way of revision before respondent No 2/Board of Revenue, which was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2008, hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioner for quashing the impungned order 18.3.2008 passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 14.11.2007 passed by respondent No.3. 3. This Court vide order dated 30.7.2008 directed the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit but no supplementary affidavit was filed for 14 years, however, a supplementary affidavit dated 8.4.2022 has been filed on 2.12.2022 on behalf of petitioner annexing certain documents in compliance of the order dated 11.3.2022 passed by this Court. 4. On behalf of petitioner a Civil Misc Impleadment Application No - 224404 of 2015 was filed with the prayer to implead-Shivpujan Singh (minor) and Shiv Om Singh (minor) under guardian of their natural mother-Smt. Manoja Devi on the ground that a sale-deed has been executed on 16.4.2015 by respondent No- 5 in favour of aforementioned applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that objection filed under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A & L.R Rules before respondent No-3/Commissioner against the sale took place on 27.10.2005 was maintainable, as such, the impugned order passed by respondent No 3 dismissing the objection as not maintainable, is wholly illegal. He further submitted that mandatory provision contained under the Rules 281, 282 & 284 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Rules have not been followed, as such, the entire proceeding of sale is vitiated. He further submitted that mandatory provision contained under the Rules 281, 282 & 284 of U.P.Z.A & L.R Rules have not been followed, as such, the entire proceeding of sale is vitiated. He further placed the provisions contained under sections 280, 281 & 282 of U.P Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 as well as provisions contained under Sections 146,147 & 149 of U.P Land Revenue Act 1901, which provides the procedure for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. He further submitted that petitioner's 45 Bigha of agriculture holding has been sold for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 75000/-, which is wholly illegal. He further submitted that the respondent No-2/Board of Revenue has also failed to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law, as such, impugned orders are illegal & liable to be quashed. He further placed reliance upon the judgments reported in 1990 Allahabad Civil Journal 434, Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue (Full Bench) & 1997 Allahabad Civil Journal 1236, Prithvipat v. State of U.P. & others. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Anjani Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that impugned orders have been rightly passed by the Commissioner as well as Board of Revenue rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner, under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A & L.R Rules as not maintainable as well as revision. He further submitted that the sale has taken place in pursuance of the order passed by Civil Judge in execution proceeding under Section 128 of Criminal Procedure Code and sale certificate has been issued in favour of respondent No.5, which requires no interference. He further submitted that writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the objection filed under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules at the instance of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 14.11.2007. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner has been also dismissed by the Board of Revenue under the impugned order dated 18.3.2008. 9. There is also no dispute about the fact that the revision filed by the petitioner has been also dismissed by the Board of Revenue under the impugned order dated 18.3.2008. 9. It is relevant to mention here that in respect to the non-payment of maintenance amount to the wife by the petitioner (husband), the proceeding for auction has taken place on 27.10.2005 and sale certificate has been executed by the Civil Judge in favour of respondent no.5 on 2.9.2008. 10. This Court has not entertained the matter since the filing of the instant petition in the year 2008 as no order has been passed inviting counter affidavit in the matter rather two weeks time was granted to petitioner to file supplementary affidavit but no supplementary affidavit was filed. During pendency of the petition, an application for impleadment dated 5.7.2015 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to implead the persons in whose favour the sale deed was executed on 16.4.2015 by respondent no.5. It is also material that this Court vide order dated 30.7.2008 granted two weeks time to learned counsel for the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit but no supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner for the period of 14 years. This Court again granted a week time vide order dated 11.3.2022, accordingly, the supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 2.12.2022. It is also material that wife of the petitioner has expired on 28.8.2020 and petitioner has harassed her legally wedded wife till her death, as such, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. 11. The objection filed under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules has been rightly dismissed by the Commissioner as not maintainable, which has been maintained rightly in revision as the petitioner has not paid the maintenance amount to his legally wedded wife for the long period, accordingly, the auction has taken place under the order of Civil Judge passed in execution case under section 128 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and in pursuance of the auction taken place, Civil Judge has executed the sale deed in favour of respondent no.5, as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the matter. It is also material that in pursuance of the sale deed executed in favour of respondent no.5, a sale deed has been further executed by respondent No.5 in favour of certain persons, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the matter. 12. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Impleadment Application No- 224404 of 2015 dated 5.7.2015 filed on behalf of petitioner is rejected. 14. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, no interference is required in the matter and the writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.