Back
2015 Supreme(All) 3095
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Sajid Ali And 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. And 5 Others - Respondent
WRIT - C No. 41795 of 2015
Decided On : 20-11-2015
For the Petitioner: Pramod K. Sinha.
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
The main legal point established is that once an auction sale is confirmed and the petitioner is in possession of the land, the issuance of a sale certificate cannot be refused based on pending legal proceedings or change in land identity due to consolidation operations.
Headnote:
auction sale - land dispute - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules - Rule 285-J, Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act - consolidation operations - Babu Ali and others Vs. Dukkhi and others, Smt. Shanti Devi Vs. State of U.P. And others, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Gurnam Kaur
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders related to the auction sale of land, which was challenged by the contesting respondents through various legal proceedings. The petitioner argued that the auction sale was confirmed and a sale certificate should be issued, while the respondents contended that the sale was not confirmed and the land's identity had changed due to consolidation operations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the auction sale was confirmed, the petitioner was in possession of the land, and the change in land identity was not pressed at a subsequent stage. The court also dismissed the grounds for not issuing the sale certificate and ordered the respondents to issue the sale certificate to the petitioners.
Issues: Confirmation of auction sale, possession of the land, change in land identity due to consolidation operations, refusal to issue sale certificate
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the confirmation of the auction sale, the petitioner's possession, and dismissed the grounds for not issuing the sale certificate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the challenged orders were set aside, and a mandamus was issued to the respondents to issue the sale certificate to the petitioners.
Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.
Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Ajit, who has appeared for and filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, the contesting respondents in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the respondent n. 2 and the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the respondent no. 4.
3. The facts of the case are that the father of the respondents 5 and 6 took a loan from the Bank of Baroda. On this loan remaining unpaid, recovery proceedings were initiated and certain land belonging to the father of the respondents was attached and put to auction. The father of the petitioner was the auction purchaser in the auction held on 16.01.1992. After the auction was held, the father of the contesting respondents filed an objection, which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 30.07.1993. The said order was challenged by means of a revision before the Board of Revenue. This revision was dismissed vide order dated 03.03.1998. The contesting respondents thereafter preferred a writ petition no. 28870 of 1998. This writ petition came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2010.
4. It appears that, thereafter, the contesting respondents filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner was void. This suit is numbered as 192 of 2010. It is admitted by learned counsel for the parties that no interim order is operating in the suit.
5. The petitioner aggrieved by the fact that no sale certificate had been issued, filed a writ petition being writ petition no. 17561 of 2014. This writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 08.12.2014 directing the A.D.M. to proceed in accordance with law and to decide the claim of the petitioner. The A.D.M, thereafter remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the dispute, on its merits vide his order dated 20.03.2015.
6. In pursuance of this order of remand the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 01.06.2015 dismissed the representation/application of the petitioner holding that since a civil suit challenging the auction proceedings was pending consideration and also because an application for recall of the order passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998 was pending before this Court, there was no justification for issuing the sale certificate.
7. Hence, this writ petition challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 20.03.2015 and 01.06.2015 respectively.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the auction sale in favour of the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was duly confirmed by the Commissioner while rejecting the objection filed by the respondents by his order dated 30.07.1993.
9. Since, the auction sale had been duly confirmed and the objections filed by the respondents had been rejecting, the sale certificate was necessarily required to be issued to the petitioners who were the auction purchasers in view of the Rule 285-J of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. The second submission made is that this Court, while disposing of a writ petition no. 17561 of 2014 on 08.12.2014, had directed the A.D.M. to consider the application/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law as regards the issuance of the sale certificate. It was therefore, the A.D.M., the respondent no. 3, who was required to pass orders. Therefore, his order of remand is illegal and liable to be set aside.
10. In so far as order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, respondent no. 4 is concerned, it has been submitted that the findings returned that the auction sale in favour of the petitioner, had not been confirmed is contrary to the record as also contrary to the findings recorded by this Court while dismissing writ petition no. 28870 of 1998.
11. He has further submitted that this Court in its order dated 11.05.2010 passed in writ petition no. 28870 of 1998 has categorically recorded t
