Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Rules 285-H and 285-I of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules as the Commissioner does not act as a court in respect of these proceedings.

Headnote:
U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SECTION 341 - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - APPLICABILITY - PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULES 285-H AND 285-I - WHETHER JUDICIAL IN NATURE - WHETHER COMMISSIONER ACTS AS A COURT - WHETHER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT APPLIES.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner purchased a factory in an auction sale held under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The sale was challenged by the U. P. Financial Corporation and the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India on the grounds of irregularities and collusion. The Commissioner, Agra Division, set aside the sale on the grounds of inadequate price, non-inclusion of movables in the sale proclamation, and lack of adequate publicity.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for setting aside the sale as they were filed beyond the period of 30 days prescribed under Rule 285-K of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The Court further held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to the proceedings under Rules 285-H and 285-I as the Commissioner did not act as a court in respect of these proceedings.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner had the power to condone the delay in filing the objections to the sale. 2. Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied to the proceedings under Rules 285-H and 285-I. 3. Whether the sale could be set aside on the grounds of inadequate price, non-inclusion of movables in the sale proclamation, and lack of adequate publicity.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 341 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act makes the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the proceedings under the Act. 2. Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to proceedings of a judicial nature pending before a Court. The proceedings under Rules 285-H and 285-I are not mentioned in the appendix III to the Rules framed under the Act. The Commissioner acts as a revenue officer in respect of proceedings under Rules 285-H and 285-I, and not as a court. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to these proceedings. 3. The sale could not be set aside on the grounds of inadequate price, non-inclusion of movables in the sale proclamation, and lack of adequate publicity as the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the applications for setting aside the sale.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner setting aside the sale was quashed.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the quashing of an order dated 16-8-1982 passed by the Commissioner, Agra division, Agra (respondent No. 1 ). By that order, the respondent No. 1 has set aside an auction sale held in favour of the petitioner in respect of a factory owned by M/s. Indo-Swedish Pipe Manufacturers Limited, Nawalganj (Agra ). The sale took place under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Rules in pursuance of a recovery certificate dated 31-3-1979 issued by the Managing Director of the U. P. Financial Corporation (respondent no. 3) to the Collector. Agra (respondent No. 2) for the recovery of a sum of rs. 19,96,652. 79 from M/s. Indo-Swedish Pipe Manufacturers Limited. Nawalganj (Agra) under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, The Managing Director of the U. P. Financial corporation in his letter dated 31-3-1979 mentioned details of the landed property, machinery of the factory sought to be auctioned and details of other properties of the defaulter Company. They were marked as schedules A, B and c to the said letter. The Collector, Agra, in pursuance of the recovery certificate, attached the property of the defaulter Firm, issued a sale proclamation dated 26-1-1979, which was served on the Manager of the Indo- swedish Pipe Manufacturers on 6-8-1979. According to the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, this proclamation included only the landed property, and not the plant and machinery standing on the land. It appears that another proclamation was also issued which included the entire factory including the plant and machinery standing thereon. The proclamation of sale was affixed on the gate of the factory on 13-11-1979, and publicity thereof was also made by pasting a copy of the same on the notice boards of the Nagar Mahapalika, Agra and the Collectorate, Agra. Publicity was also made by beat of drum in the industrial area of Nunihaee and Hathras Road, agra on 22-12-1979. The sale took place on 28-12-1979 on the premises of the defaulter firm at 11-00 a. m. The highest bid was offered by the petitioner- company through its agent, Sri Vinod Kumar, for a sum of Rs. 10,35,000/ -. The auction proceedings had been conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sale officer,) Etmadpur (Agra ). Although there were nine participants in the auction, the real competitors were one Shri Swaroop Chandra lain and Sri Subhash duneria. The bid offered by Sri Swaroop Chandra Jain was for a sum of Rs. 10,15,000/- and that by Sri Subhash Duneria for a sum of Rs. 10,13,000/ -. On 31-12-1979, a report was submitted to the Additional Collector (Finance and revenue), Agra for approval of the auction sale. The sale was accepted by the additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) by his order dated 15-1-1980. The sale was thereafter formally confirmed in favour of the petitioner, and a sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser on 12-2-1980, The petitioner got the sale certificate registered on the same day and possession over the property was directed to be given.

( 2 ) IT appears that the U. P. Financial Corporation (respondent No. 3), which had applied to the Collector for the recovery of its dues against the Indo-Swadish pipe Manufacturers Ltd. , filed an objection before the Collector, Agra against the sale proceedings. The objection was filed on 25-1-1981 after the sale had been approved by the Additional Collector but before it was confirmed by the collector on 11-2-1980. The objection filed by the U. P. Financial Corporation was rejected by the Additional Collector on 2-2-1980. It appears that another objection was filed but no action was taken on it. The U. P. Financial corporation thereafter filed an objection before the Commissioner, Agra division, (respondent No. 1) on 4-3-1980, and an additional objection was also filed by it on 13-5-1980. The petitioner filed his written reply to the objection on 3-8-1982.

( 3