Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

AFTAB ALAM,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On the writ petitions filed by the UP State Industrial Development Corporation (respondent no.1) the Allahabad High Court set aside the auction sale of two pieces of land made in favour of the appellants. The High Court held that the auction sale of the two plots was a nullity because in violation of rule 285-D of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms (UPZALR) Rules, 1952 the appellants did not deposit one fourth of their bid amounts immediately on the conclusion of the auction, but deposited the requisite amounts on the following day. Having thus held the auction sale legally untenable, the High Court did not advert to the other circumstances and the manner in which the auction sale was held.

(emphasis added)

11. Next, proclamations were issued on May 13, 1992, one for attachment of the plot and the other prohibiting SAPL from selling, transferring or mortgaging the property in favour of any other person. The service of the proclamations was effected exactly in the same manner as in the case of the other plot (being plot no.2/1). The Pargana Adhikari then made a request to the Tehsildar, Dadri for issuing the order for auction sale of the property that was lying under attachment. The Tehsildar issued the Sale Proclamation (undated) fixing the auction sale of this plot too on June 15, 1992. The service of the Sale Proclamation was effected in the same way as in case of the earlier proclamations. A petition for grant of some time for payment of the government dues was filed before the Tehsildar on June 9, 1992 on behalf of SAPL also.

35. These, in short, are the credentials of the two appellants and the manner in which the two plots in question were put to auction sale purportedly for recovery of the government dues.

36. Against the auction sale of the plots in question both the private respondents and the UPSIDC, the owner of the plots, filed their respective objections before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, but their objections were rejected by the order dated November 5, 1998 passed by the Commissioner in objection letter Nos.19 and 25 of 1991-1992. The UPSIDC filed review petition before the Commissioner which too was dismissed on May 3, 1999 on the ground that the objection petition was dismissed on merits by a speaking order. Against the order passed by the Commissioner, both the private respondent and the UPSIDC filed revisions before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. Even while the revision of the private respondent was pending, the revision filed by the UPSIDC was dismissed by order dated October 11, 1999 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.10(LR) of 1998-1999. We feel sorry that such a gross case could not be corrected even at the highest level of the State Administration.

38. He also took us through the relevant provisions of the UPZALR Act and the UPZALR Rules as referred to above in this judgment. We appreciate the assistance rendered by him to the Court.

39. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the so called auction sale of the two plots in favour of the appellants was thoroughly illegal. Though the High Court set aside the auction sale of the two plots on the technical ground of violation of Rule 285-D, on a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the auction sale was bad and malafide and was a blatant attempt to grab the public land. We, thus, find no merit in the appeal.