JUDGMENT :

The facts, which engage consideration in the instant case, are that there lies a property, bearing Municipal No.5, Rajpur Road-I, Dehradun popularly known as Digvijay Talkies and the dispute pertains to the first floor of the said property, which was initially owned by one Chanda Devi (now deceased)(herein to be called disputed property).

2. Late Chanda Devi, the predecessor owner of the property in dispute, fell in arrears of the Municipal taxes, which was otherwise payable by her to the Nagar Nigam. As a consequence thereto, as per the municipal records, the arrears of taxes, which was assessed to be made payable by her till 1994-99 was assessed to be Rs.1,31,911.20.

3. Since the taxes were not remitted within time, as demanded by the Municipality, the property was put to auction and, for that purpose, as per Land Revenue Act of 1901, prior to auctioning the property, the same was attached in the light of the provisions of Section 163 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The attachment was not questioned by any party.

4. Non-questioning of the validity of attachment under Section 163 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act had, ultimately, resulted into issuance of proclamation of sale by the Collector on 23.11.2019 under the Act of 1901.

5. Ultimately, the property was scheduled to be auctioned on 30.12.1999, in which, the petitioner along with the other probable purchasers had participated in the auctioning proceedings and since the petitioner had offered the highest bid price of Rs.7,40,000/-, the auction was confirmed in his favour with the fall of hammer.

6. As a consequence to the fall of hammer, the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs.7,40,000/- and a receipt, in lieu thereof, was issued in his favour on 30.12.1999, being the total deposit, which had been made by him before the Nagar Nigam on 13.01.2000.

7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that as soon as the property has been validly put to auction on 30.12.1999 and the period of 30 days has expired, in the light of the provisions contained under Section 173 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the auction, thus conducted on 30.12.1999, would automatically stand confirmed in favour of auction purchaser, owing to the implications of the provisions, contained under Section 174 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901.

8. As argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are two aspects – one, that as soon as the auction is confirmed with the fall of hammer, the Collector becomes functus officio to pass any order on the same and he could not have put the property to re-auctioning and that too, particularly, when the auction has been confirmed after the expiry of the statutory period provided under Section 174 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901.

9. Secondly, the petitioner contends that the attachment, the proclamation, the auction and its consequential confirmation was not questioned by any aggrieved person before any superior forum. He further submits that none of the defaulters, claiming of under the principal owner of the property Chanda Devi, had not deposited any amount before the Collector, after the culmination of first set of auction which was held on 30.12.1999. Even no one had filed any objection as such against the auction proceedings, before the Commissioner. Hence, for all practical and legal purpose the said auction proceedings had attained finality.

10. The exact controversy starts germinating, at the stage, when the Collector had set aside the auction, based on his own whims and fancies, contending therein that the bid money, as it was offered by the petitioner of Rs.7,40,000/- on 30.12.2019, did not commensurate with the circle rate, as it was then notified by the Collector, which, according to his perception, was prevalent, at the time, when the auction was conducted.

11. First of all, this cannot be a valid reason to sit over an order of confirmation of an auction sale and, particularly, in the light of the provisions, contained unde