The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the limitation period of 30 days for filing an application against auction sale under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners had filed application under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) before the Commissioner, on 29.08.2000, challenging sale of land belonging to their grandfather in a public auction held on 22.04.1994. They had also challenged the order passed by S.D.M., Roorkee on 04.11.1996, whereby the auction sale of the said land was confirmed in terms of Rule 285- J of the aforesaid Rules. The said application was rejected by Commissioner, Garhwal Division vide order dated 29.04.2003. Petitioners challenged the order passed Commissioner, Garhwal Division in a Revision before Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Dehradun, which too was dismissed vide judgment & order dated 31.03.2006. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders impugned dated 29.4.2003 and 31.3.2006 passed by respondent no. 1 & 2 Annexed as Annexure No. 10 & 15 to the writ petition respectively.

(ii) To issue an appropriate direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the petitioners’ objection filed under Section 285 (i) on merits after granting him benefit of delay after allowing the Section 5 application.”

2. It is not in dispute that grandfather of the petitioners, namely, Banwari Lal had taken a loan of Rs. 9,000/- from State Bank of India, Branch Bhagwanpur (Haridwar) in the year 1986. In view of default in repayment of loan by him, a citation for recovery of Rs. 9,494.56 was issued against him under Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Since the outstanding dues were not paid even after issuance of recovery citation, therefore, the land belonging to Banwari Lal was attached and sold in a public auction for Rs. 16,800/-. The public auction was held on 22.04.1994 and the sale was confirmed by S.D.M. under Rule 285-J of the aforesaid Rules vide order dated 04.11.1996 and Sale Certificate was issued to the auction purchaser (respondent no. 3) on 18.11.1996. The Sale Certificate is on record as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition, which contains a recital that respondent no. 3 has been put in possession over purchased land.

3. After several years, petitioners filed an application on 29.08.2000 under Rule 285-I of aforesaid Rules before the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, challenging the auction sale of the land on the ground that the auction was held behind their back without notice to them. They also challenged the order passed by S.D.M., Roorkee dated 04.11.1996, whereby sale was confirmed. In their application, petitioners contended that the borrower (Banwari Lal) had died on 26.05.1993, therefore, the auction proceedings held against a dead person are vitiated and the order confirming sale is also vitiated. They further contended that they acquired knowledge about the auction sale of the land only on 08.08.2020. Commissioner, Garhwal Division rejected petitioners’ application vide order dated 29.04.2003 on the ground that similar objection under Rule 285-I filed by petitioners earlier was rejected on the ground of delay by Commissioner, Saharanpur Division vide order dated 06.07.1999, therefore, second application filed by them for the same relief, would not be maintainable. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by Divisional Commissioner, petitioners approached Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal by filing Z.A. Revision No. 5/2003-04. Learned Revisional Court by a detailed judgment dated 31.03.2006 dismissed the Revision inter-alia holding that Rule 285-I provides limitation period of only 30 days for making application against auction sale, while petitioners had filed such application after more than 5 years.

4. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 22.04.1994 when the land was put to auction, name of petitioners were record