Mandatory compliance with Rule 285-E of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 is essential for the validity of auction sales.

JUDGMENT :

(Manish Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.8.2008 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow) under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act and order dated 6.6.2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow) under Section 285-I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules, 1952).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had purchased a land Gata No.978 area 0.4810 hectare and Gata No.1060 area 0.6160 hectre situated at Village Tikra Kalan, Pargana -Gondwa, Tehsil -Sandila, District -Hardoi through public auction which was held on 24.10.1991. The petitioner as per Rule 285D of Rules, 1952 had deposited 25% of the purchase amount on the very same day i.e. 24.10.1991. The remaining amount of sale consideration was paid by the petitioner on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin on or before 15th day from the date of sale as per Rule 285E of the Rules, 1952.

4. It is further submitted that against the said sale an objection under Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 was preferred by the Respondent No.4 that the petitioner had not deposited the remaining amount within 15 days from the date of sale. The proceedings were going on and finally the present impugned orders have been passed against the petitioner.

5. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order under Section 285-I dated 6.6.2005 by Respondent No.2, the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing and completely ignored this fact that the petitioner had deposited the amount on 08.11.1991 with the Collection Amin. In support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 20.10.2008 i.e. questionnaire dated 03.10.2008 and also relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner and other vs. Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. passed in Special Appeal No.653 of 2021 wherein, this Court has held that the power conferred upon the Commissioner to determine and adjudicate upon the proper conduct of the auction sale, the Commissioner is required to record findings after giving notice to the parties and giving them opportunity for producing oral and documentary evidence, which had not been provided to the petitioner.

6. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the remaining sale amount was not deposited by the purchaser / petitioner within 15 days of the sale as required under Rule 285-E of the Rules, 1952 and the consequences of the same is that the sale will be treated as null and void and in support of his submission learned State counsel has relied upon the judgements of this Court dated 29.09.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.4758 (M/S) of 2008 (Ajay Singh vs. Chairman, Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh and others and the judgement in the case of Narayan Kumar Agarwal and Another. vs. Board of Revenue and 5 others reported in 2003(1) ALJ, page 662.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case and the judgements cited by both the sides the questions which are to be decided by this Court firstly, whether the remaining amount of sale consideration was deposited by the petitioner within 15 days from the date of sale or not as per Rule 285 E of Rules, 1952 and secondly, whether the order passed by the respondent was without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner makes the impugned order bad in the eyes of law.

8. As per facts of this case as discussed hereinabove, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that he had paid the remaining sale consideration on 08.11.1991 to the Collection Amin. On being asked to show or produce any receipt for deposition of the amount, learned counsel fo