Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1638
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Shiv Pratap - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and 3 Others - Respondent
Writ C. No. 60715 of 2016
Decided On : 20-01-2017
For the Petitioner:- Ashish Kumar Ojha
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.
The petitioner must provide evidence to support the claim for the return of Government money, and appropriate legal proceedings should be initiated to establish the case.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Return of Auction Money - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking a mandamus to return the money deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury towards an auction, stating that the petitioner could initiate appropriate proceedings before a court of law for establishing his case by leading evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in an auction, deposited money, and obtained possession of the auctioned crop. Subsequently, the petitioner sought the return of the deposited money, alleging illegal cutting away of the crop by unauthorized persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the petitioner's claim for the return of the Government money and dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner was advised to initiate appropriate proceedings before a court of law for establishing his case.
Issues: Dispute over possession of auctioned crop, alleged illegal cutting away of the crop, and the petitioner's claim for the return of the deposited money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without evidence to support the petitioner's claim, no direction could be given to return the Government money. The petitioner was advised to pursue the matter in a court of law with appropriate evidence.
Final Decision: The writ petition seeking the return of the Government money was dismissed, with the petitioner advised to pursue the matter in a court of law with appropriate evidence.
Sunita Agarwal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus commanding respondents to return the money deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury towards auction which was held on 11.11.2016. It appears that the crops standing in Gata No. 2254, 2258M and 2258, which is land of Gram Sabha, was given in the custody of the then Gram Pradhan. A first information report was lodged for dissipation of public property under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The crop was attached on 3rd November, 2016 and after getting valuation from the District Agriculture Officer, Mainpuri, auction was held on 11.11.2016. The petitioner had participated in the auction and deposited the auction money on 11.11.2016 to the tune of Rs. 31,750/-. The auction was confirmed on 11.11.2016 itself and possession of the auctioned crop has been handed over to the petitioner. On 13.11.2016, the petitioner moved an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Bhogaon, District Mainpuri stating therein that two miscreants namely Anil Kumar son of Anar Singh and Anar Singh son of Chhote Lal had cut away a portion of the crop illegally in the midnight of 12.11.2016 and 13.11.2016. They have also made effort to damage the standing crop purchased by the petitioner.
3. The prayer made in the said application itself was to return the deposit of Rs. 31,750/- made by the petitioner in the Government treasury. It appears that a report dated 19.11.2016 has been submitted by the Lekhpal that Anar Singh son of Chhote Lal and Smt. Uma Singh wife of Anar Singh, whose names have been recorded in the revenue records and whose allotment has been cancelled by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Agra Division, Agra by order dated 8.6.2016, had unauthorizedly sown crop in the plots in question which was confiscated and sold in auction. On the complaint made by the petitioner auction purchaser regarding cutting away of the standing crop by these persons, the statements of the applicant/petitioner as also other villagers have been recorded whereby it was found that the standing crop was cut away by those persons who were in illegal possession of the land in question. It is noteworthy that the names of other villagers whose statements have been recorded by the Lekhpal have not been disclosed in the said report. It appears that the report dated 19.11.2016 has been submitted by the Lekhpal only on the statement made by the petitioner.
4. It appears that the dispute regarding cancellation of the allotment has been raised by the respondents who were alleged allottees of the land in question in a separate writ petition.
5. From the facts on record of the present petition, it is reflected that the possession after attachment of the standing crop on the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner though stated but could not be prove that the possession of the standing crop which was auctioned on 11.11.2016 could not be handed over to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to establish otherwise except that the standing crop was handed over on 11.11.2016 to the petitioner soon after the auction was confirmed. There is no averment in the complaint dated 13.11.2016 submitted by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer which could even suggest that the possession of the attached crop was not handed over to him.
7. Though it is stated in paragraph 11' of the writ petition that the petitioner has approached the police authorities for the illegal act of the miscreants who had cut away the crop but nothing has been brought on record to substantiate the same. Even the persons who allegedly had cut away the crop are not party in the present writ petition.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the letter dated 7.12.2016 written by him to the Collector, Mainpuri wh
