Back
2013 Supreme(All) 1082
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.
Ram Gopal -Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow & Ore. -Respondent
W.P. No. 6438 of 2009
Decided On : 14-04-2013
For The Petitioner: -B.L.Bhartiya, Chandra Pratap Singh, Indra Pratap Singh
For the respondent: C.S.C., DilipPandey
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove injury by reason of irregularity or mistake in auction proceedings under Rule 285-I of the Rules.
Headnote:
Sale Objection - Auction Proceedings - Rule 285-M of UP.Z.A. and LR. Rules, 1952 - The court discussed the auction proceedings, the issuance of Akar Patras, and the filing of the Sale Objection under Rule 285-I. It highlighted the time limit for filing the objection, the requirement to prove injury due to irregularity or mistake, and the finality of the Commissioner's order under Rule 285-I.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order quashing the auction and sale certificate of a property. The respondent had filed a Sale Objection under Rule 285(1) which was rejected by the Additional Commissioner, but allowed by the Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Board of Revenue's order was devoid of merit as it did not consider whether the respondent had sustained any injury due to the alleged irregularity or mistake in the auction proceedings. It upheld the order of the Additional Commissioner and quashed the Board of Revenue's order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the auction proceedings, the filing of the Sale Objection, and the consideration of injury sustained by the respondent due to irregularities or mistakes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the remedy available to the respondent was to file a suit in the Civil Court for setting aside the sale on the ground of fraud. It emphasized the need to prove injury due to irregularity or mistake in the auction proceedings under Rule 285-I.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the Board of Revenue's order was quashed, and the Additional Commissioner's order was upheld.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Gopal Verma against the order dated 22-10-2009 passed by Member(Judicial), Hon'ble Board of Revenue, UP., Lucknow in Revision No. 5 (Sale)/ LR 1999-2000 by which order dated 10-5-2000 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and auction dated 19-6-1997 was also quashed.
3. On factual matrix of the case Santosh Kumar was the owner of Khata No. 335, Plot Nos. 575/1.073, 582/0.746 in which he has got l/3rd share. He has taken a loan of amounting Rs. 9500 from UP. Rajay Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Kachhauna, Hardoi but later on became defaulter of the same. Several notices were issued and a notice was served to repay the loan and when the loan amount was not repaid, auction proceeding was initiated and Akar Patra 73 and 73-Gha was issued and served and thereafter Akar Patra 74 for auction of the property was issued and served, but the amount due was not deposited. Later on 19-6-1997 auction took place. No objection was filed by Santosh Kumar against estimated amount. The amount was not deposited hence a proposal dated 16-8-1997 was prepared by Tehsildar, Tehsildar, District-Hardoi and the 'same was accepted on 16-8-1997 by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi and auction took place in which petitioner was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted, due amount was deposited which was admitted by authorities on 13-10-1997 and was approved by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi on 13-10-1997 and thereafter sale certificate under Rule 285-M of UP.Z.A. and LR. Rules, 1952 (later on referred as the Rules) was prepared and signed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi for registering the document. It vas registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Hardoi. After that Tehsildar wrote a letter to Consolidation Officer, Baghauli for entering the name of petitioner in place of Santosh Kumar on the basis of Sale Certificate. Santosh Kumar (opposite party No. 5) filed a Sale Objection under Rule 285(1) which was registered as Sale Objection No. 22/97-98 before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. This objection was rejected by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) on 10-5-2000 as there was no illegality or irregularity in the auction proceeding.
4. Feeling aggrieved Santosh Kumar filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed by the impugned order.
5. It was argued from the side of petitioner as per Rule 285(H) the person whose land has been sold under the Act at any time within 30 days from the date of sale apply to have the same set aside on his depositing in the Collector's Office for payment of the purchaser, the same equal to 5% purchase money and for payment on account of arrears amount specify in the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74. It was also argued that this procedure was not adopted hence the application is liable to be rejected. It was barred and it could not have been filed before the Additional Commissioner.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 argued that the Sale Objection has been filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules hence it was made before the Commissioner. It was also argued that Akar Patra No. 74 was not served. Hence there is an irregularity.
7. A perusal of the record reveals that on three occasions Akar Patra 74 was issued to the respondent No. 5 on 16-8-1997,22-10-1997 and 13-10-1997.
8. Akar Patras 73 and 73(Gha) issued on 15-5-1996 was personally served on respondent No. 5. Due to some reasons on these three occasions, auction could not be held so again Akar Patra 74 was issued on 16-6-1997 and on that date it was not personally served so it was affixed on his house and it was signed by two witnesses Amar Pal Singh and Munna though it was argued by respondent No. 5 again that he had no knowledge of the proceeding against him.
9. On 19-6-1997 auction took place and the bid was accepted on after depositing of the auction money on 16-8-1997
