Hon’ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.—An accused by the name of Arvind Prakash was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by the District & Sessions Judge, Etawah in Sessions Trial No. 324 of 1978 (State v. Arvind Prakash, P.S. Jaswant Nagar, district Etawah). The petitioner has averred that the conviction was maintained in a criminal appeal by this Court and the special leave petition against the judgment of the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

2. Since the accused was on bail, he was required to surrender to serve the sentence after the dismissal of the special leave petition. On 17 April 2003, the District & Sessions Judge directed that the convict must show-cause on 19 May 2003 as to why his bail bond be not forfeited. On 19 May 2003, the surety was furnished a period of one month for ensuring the presence of the accused who was absconding. Eventually, proceedings were initiated under Section 82/83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. By an order dated 21 May 2003, the agricultural property to the extent of the share of the convict was attached by the Deputy Collector, Jaswant Nagar. On 23 June 2003, the Sessions Judge directed the Deputy Collector to sell the attached property of the convict if he did not surrender within a period of six months. By an order dated 24 December 2003, the Sessions Judge directed the disposal of the attached property by a public auction under Section 85 (3). The Naib Tehsildar was appointed as the Auctioning Officer by an order of the Deputy Collector. The Tehsildar issued a proclamation for holding of an auction on 16 January 2004. The petitioner was the highest bidder in the amount of Rs. 40,000/- and the bid was finalized in his favour. The petitioner deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 16 January 2004 with the Tehsildar. On 17 January 2004, the Tehsildar, remitted the amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Etawah which was received it on 19 April 2004.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the auction-sale which was held on 16 January 2004 and the deposit of the entire auction proceeds, the Tehsil authorities have not delivered the possession of the auctioned property. The petitioner made an application on 25 March 2004 to the Deputy Collector. The petitioner thereupon moved further applications on 26 April 2005, 29 September 2006 and 26 June 2007. The Deputy Collector obtained the legal opinion of the DGC (Civil), Etawah on 14 September 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has made as many as 12 representations between 14 October 2009 and 15 April 2015 but no decision was taken by the Collector and District Magistrate, Etawah.

4. Accordingly, the writ proceedings have been instituted for a direction to the Collector and District Magistrate and Deputy Collector to approve the auction sale and transfer the title and possession to the petitioner or, in the alternative, for refund of the amount of the auction money deposited by the petitioner on 16 January 2004 together with interest. The petitioner seeks a disposal of his representation dated 4 January 2016.

5. Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 provides for a proclamation by the Court requiring a person against whom a warrant has been issued by it and who is absconding or concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, to appear at a specified place and time not less than thirty days from the date of publication of such a proclamation. The proclamation is required to be published in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 82. Section 83 empowers the Court after the issuance of the proclamation to order the attachment of the property belonging to the proclaimed person. Under sub-section (4) of Section 83, if the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this Section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the Sate Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land