Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1200
[2006(9) ADJ 681 (All)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.K. SINGH, J.
NOOR AHMAD ——Petitioner
Versus
BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND OTHERS .Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1889 of 2005, decided on 25th April, 2006)
Rahul Sahai for the Petitioner; M.A. Qadeer, Ateeq Ahmad Khan, S.C., for the Respondents.
.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952—Rule 285-I—Proceeding on filing objection under—Nature of—Judicial function—Courts exercising the judicial function or to deal with the pleading of the parties, the submission advanced and thereafter are supposed to record reasons for rejecting/accepting the same—Objection filed with specific ground that auction sale had taken place without any publication and notice in any manner—No finding recorded by Courts below—Judgment silent on the point—Matter to be considered by the authorities concerned—Court declined to express any opinion. [Para 8]
(B) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952—Rule 285-I—Scope of—Objection under—No mention that if the auction sale has been confirmed then the objection will not lie—Auction proceeding/auction sale includes the confirmation also as it is consequential step which is bound to take place—Objection even after the prescribed period of 30 days has to be entertained, of course on the satisfaction of the Court about the explanation so given for coming to the Court after period of limitation. [Para 10]
(C) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952, Rule 285-I—Auction a mode of recovery—Of loan amount—Intention behind—Property so being auctioned has to fetch a fair price so as to meet out the loan amount and if amount is surplus then that has to be paid to the owner of the property as his property is being taken away in one of the modes of the recovery—Non consideration of all the aspects makes the judgments and orders of the Courts below unsustainable—Matter needs fresh attention on all the scores—Both the judgments set aside—Matter remitted back to Commissioner to revive the objection again on merits and deal the same in accordance with law. [Paras 11 to 15]
Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 16.9.2004 and that of the Commissioner of the Division dated 5.8.1996 (Annexures 1 and 2 respectively).
2. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned Advocate in support of this petition, Sri Qadeer, learned Advocate who appeared for the auction purchaser and Sri Khan, learned Advocate who appeared on behalf of the U. P. Financial Corporation.
3. There is no dispute about certain facts and therefore it may be summarised in brief for the purpose of disposal of the case. Petitioner took the loan from the U. P. Financial Corporation in the year 1985 to establish a bone mill, which was set up in the name of M/s. Ansari Bone Mill Private Limited on plot No. 402/3 (area 1.78 acres) in village Maudaha, District Hamirpur. Admittedly there was default in payment of the amount upon which U. P. Financial Corporation gave a notice to the petitioner for payment of the loan amount and ultimately on account of non payment the property which is said to be under mortgage was put to auction on 4.7.1994 in which respondent No. 7 who is represented by Sri Qadir in this Court was the highest bidder who offered an amount of Rs. 1,30,000. The authorities being not satisfied with the price so offered by the respondent No. 7 cancelled the auction proceeding/sale on 10.8.1994. Thereafter again fresh auction took place on 12.9.1994 in which again respondent No. 7 happened to be the highest bidder for the same amount of Rs. 1,30,000/-, which this time was accepted by the competent authority. Auction sale stood confirmed on 22.11.1994. It is thereafter said that sale certificate was issued on 5.12.1994. Objection was filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Rules on 13.12.1994 and as there was delay in filing the objection he filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 23.7.1996. It is claimed that one Abdul Kaleem also filed his objections on 17.2.1995. Learned Commissioner by the order dated 5.8.1996 by recording a finding that the petitioner has not made out a case for condonation of delay in filing the objection chose to reject the objection upon which petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue which came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2004 and thus two orders i.e. order of the Board of Revenue and that of learned Commissioner referred above are under challenge in this petition.
4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that proceeding on filing the objection under Rule 285-I of the Rules being judicial in nature, the learned Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were supposed to go into details of the objections/grounds so taken and they were supposed to record minimum required reasons and the findings for rejecting the petitioner’s objection on merits and the grounds which were taken for condonation of delay. Submission is that both orders on their perusal can be safely termed to be perverse and totally non speaking and therefore, on the facts as the petitioner has submitted before the Courts below that he has suffered serious prejudice on account of impugned auction, he is entitled for a fresh consideration in detail on the merits by the Courts below. Submission is that petitioner has clearly stated before the learned Commissioner, before the Board of Revenue and before this Court also that second proceedings dated 12.9.1994 took place without any publication, and any kind of notice but neither the authorities have given any finding on this score nor in this Court in the counter affidavit filed by the two respondents there is any positive reply. No finding or any detail has been given in either of the judgments to reject the petitioner’s contention in this respect and, therefore, submission is that matter needs fresh attention. Submission is that this is not for this Court to go into the suffici
