# Darshan Singh v. State of U.P. And Others

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 1157
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 61899 of 2011
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/darshan-singh-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-44422
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Reforms Rules, 1952 - Section-285H,
Section 285I, Section 285-K - essential
prerequisite enshrined are mandatory to
challenge the auction sale under the
rules, 1952.
The competent authority to entertain the
challenge to the auction is Commissioner and
to challenge the auction-the owner of the
auctioned property is eligible under rules. The
provisions are a complete code. The limited
set of persons, who are entitled to challenge
an auction sale, are clearly defined. The
producer to make a challenge to such auction
sale, is specifically prescribed. The authorities,
to decide the validity of such challenge, have
also been identified. (Para 21)

Cases cited: -
1.Executive
Engineer,
Karnataka
housing
Board vs. LAO, 2011 (2) SCC 24

## Text

1 All. Darshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others
1157
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 61899 of 2011

Darshan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.. Sri Awadhesh Prasad Pandey, Sri
Rajeev Pandey, Sri S.K. Purwar

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land
Reforms Rules, 1952 - Section-285H,
Section 285I, Section 285-K - essential
prerequisite enshrined are mandatory to
challenge the auction sale under the
rules, 1952.
The competent authority to entertain the
challenge to the auction is Commissioner and
to challenge the auction-the owner of the
auctioned property is eligible under rules. The
provisions are a complete code. The limited
set of persons, who are entitled to challenge
an auction sale, are clearly defined. The
producer to make a challenge to such auction
sale, is specifically prescribed. The authorities,
to decide the validity of such challenge, have
also been identified. (Para 21)

Cases cited: -
1.Executive
Engineer,
Karnataka
housing
Board vs. LAO, 2011 (2) SCC 24

2.
Sanwar
pal
Singh
vs.
Additional
Commissioner, Saharanpur and others, 2017
(8) ADJ 550. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the order, dated 14.10.2011,
passed by the learned Commissioner,
Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Revision No.40
of
2010-2011,
(Darshan
Singh
Vs.
Jagdish Singh and others), the order
passed by the learned Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division,
Jhansi
in
like
proceedings, on 20.6.2011, has been
recalled, and the matter has been remitted
to the trial court for fresh adjudication.

2. The petitioner, is aggrieved by the
order dated 14.10.2011, passed by the
learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi, in Revision No.40 of 2010-2011,
(Darshan Singh Vs. Jagdish Singh and
others), and has assailed the said order, in
the instant writ petition.

3 . Sri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned
counsel for the petitioner, in support of
the writ petition, submits that the
Collector, does not have the jurisdiction
to recall the order, passed by the learned
Revisional Court, on an earlier occasion.
Secondly,
the
guarantor,
at
whose
instance, the recall order was passed, does
not have any locus standi, to question the
auction, and challenge the order, passed
by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi
Division,
Jhansi.
The
auction,
was
conducted in accordance with law. The
petitioner, was the auction purchaser, and
pursuant to said auction, sale certificate
was issued in favour of the petitioner. He
further submits, that the conditions
precedent for setting aside the auction,
framed under the rules of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Rules, 1952,
were not satisfied, in the instant case.

4. Sri Awdhesh Prasad Pandey,
learned counsel and Sri Vinod Kumar,
learned counsel or the respondent No.3,
submit that the respondent No.3 being the
guarantor, has the locus standi, to institute
the recall application, since he has to
1158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deposit the remaining amount due, from
the borrower.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties.

6. Certain facts, relevant to
adjudication of the controversy, are
beyond the pale of dispute. One Jagdish
Singh, had taken a loan, from the Central
Bank of India. He, defaulted in the
payment
of
loan
amount.
Distraint
proceedings, were drawn by the bank, for
recovery of the loan amount, under the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
&
Land
Reforms Rules, 1952.

7.

In
the
aforesaid
recovery
proceedings,
the
property
of
the
borrower/defaulter Jagdish @ Narain, was
put to auction. The auction, was conducted
on 03.01.2011. At the fall of the hammer, the
petitioner raised a bid of Rs.4 Lakhs. The
petitioner, was the highest bidder. The
petitioner, honoured his bid, and deposited
the entire bid amount in two instalments, on
03.01.2011, and 17.01.2011 respectively.
The sale certificate, was issued by the
competent authority, in favour of the
petitioner, on 15.09.2011.

8. The Tehsildar submitted a report on
10.02.2011, before the Paragana Magistrate,
recording certain irregularities in the auction,
and recommending the cancellation of the
auction
proceedings.
The
Paragana
Magistrate,
by
cryptic
order
dated
24.02.2011, affirmed the recommendation of
the Tehsildar. The order, passed by the
Paragana Magistrate dated 24.02.2011,
simply recorded "allowed as proposed", and
thus cancelled the auction.

9. The petitioner, claiming to be a
bona-fide auction purchaser, took the
order passed by the Paragana Magistrate,
in
revision
before
the
learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
The revision, was registered as Revision
No.40 of 2010-2011 (Darshan Singh Vs.
Jagdish Singh and others).

10. The respondent No.3, was the
guarantor in the aforesaid loan agreement.
The guarantor/respondent No.3, also
tendered his application, before the
learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi, in the revision proceedings,
registered as Revision No.40 of 20102011.

11. The order dated 03.09.2011 of
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, in the Revision No.40 of
2010-2011, (Darshan Singh Vs. Jagdish
Singh and others), records, that the
respondent No.3, Ram Babu was duly
heard. The submissions, made on behalf
of the respondent No.3 by his counsel,
were
recorded
by
the
learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.
The respondent No.3, had submitted, that
he had made an application, for correction
of the recovery certificate, and was
prepared to deposit the entire amount.
Thereafter, upon a detailed consideration
of the submissions of all parties, including
respondent No.3-Ram Babu Shiv Hare,
the learned Revisional Court found, that
the auction was made in accordance with
law, and there was no cause to interdict
the aforesaid auction proceedings. On this
foot, the revision filed by the petitioner,
was allowed by order dated 20.06.2011.

12. The application for recall of the
aforesaid order dated 20.06.2011, was
submitted on behalf of the respondent
No.3, on 03.09.2011 and was decided on
14.10.2011. The learned Commissioner,
1 All. Darshan Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Others
1159
Jhansi Division, Jhansi, by order dated
14.10.2011, recalled the order dated
20.06.2011, solely on the foot that the
respondent No.3, was not heard by the
learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division,
Jhansi, in the earlier proceedings. The
delay in filing the recall application was
also condoned.

13. The order, dated 14.10.2011, passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, which is assailed, records
findings that are contrary to the record. The
finding in the order dated 14.10.2011, that the
respondent No.3, was not heard by the learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, is
perverse.
The
order
of
the
learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dated
20.06.2011,
specifically
records,
the
submissions made on behalf of the respondent
No.3, and returns his findings thereon. The
recall application, was clearly misconceived,
and was liable to be dismissed, on this ground
alone.

14. But the matter, does not rest
here. There are other contentions, raised
by
the
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, which in the interest of
upholding the law, need to be gone into.

15. There is a sanctity, attached to
the auction proceedings, taken out under
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred
to U.P.Z.A.L.R. Rules, 1952). Auctions
under the U.P.Z.A.L.R. Rules, 1952
cannot be lightly interfered with. It would
be against the public interest and the
statutory scheme. The best bids would not
come forward for fear of uncertainty, and
lack of finality of the auction.

16. It would be apposite, to reinforce
the narrative with judicial authority in
point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Executive Engineer, Karnataka
Housing Board v. LAO, reported at 2011
(2) SCC 24 enumerated factors which
depressed the bids in a public auction, by
holding thus:

"6.But auction-sales stand on a
different footing. When purchasers start
bidding for a property in an auction, an
element of competition enters into the
auction. Human ego, and desire to do
better and excel over other competitors,
leads to competitive bidding, each trying
to outbid the others. Thus in a well
advertised open auction-sale, where a
large number of bidders participate, there
is always a tendency for the price of the
auctioned property to go up considerably.
On the other hand, where the auction-sale
is by banks or financial institutions,
courts, etc. to recover dues, there is an
element of distress, a cloud regarding
title, and a chance of litigation, which
have
the
effect
of
dampening
the
enthusiasm of bidders and making them
cautious, thereby depressing the price.
There is therefore every likelihood of
auction price being either higher or lower
than the real market price, depending
upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts
are wary of relying upon auction-sale
transactions
when
other
regular
traditional sale transactions are available
while determining the market value of the
acquired
land.
This
Court
inRaj
Kumarv.Haryana State[(2007) 7 SCC
609] observed that the element of
competition in auction-sales makes them
unsafe guides for determining the market
value."

17. Keeping this in mind, the
legislature,
has
laid
most
onerous
conditions, for conduct and setting aside
1160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of a public auction, under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Rules, 1952. The said rules being relevant
are extracted hereunder:

"285-H (1) Any person whose
holding or other immovable property has
been sold under the Act may, at any time
within thirty days from the date of sale,
apply to have the sale set aside on his
depositing in the Collector's office-

(a) for payment to the purchase,
a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase
money; and

(b) for payment on account of
the arrears, the amount specified in the
proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 as that for
the recovery of which the sale was
ordered, less any amount which may,
since the date of such proclamation of
sale, have been paid on that account; and

(c) the costs of the sale.

285-I. (i) At any time within
thirty days from the date of the sale,
application may be made to the
Commissioner to set aside the sale on
the
ground
of
some
material
irregularity or mistake in publishing
or conducting it; but no sale shall be
set aside on such ground unless the
applicant proves to the satisfaction of
the
Commissioner
that
he
has
sustained substantial injury by reason
of such irregularity or mistake.

285-K. If no application under
Rule 215-I is made within the time
allowed therefor, all claims on the ground
of irregularity or mistake in publishing or
conducting the sale shall be barred:

 Provided
that
nothing
contained in this rule shall bar the
institution of a suit in the Civil Court for
the purpose of setting aside a sale on the
ground of fraud."

18. The aforesaid provisions, cast a
fetter and condition the challenge to a
public auction, under the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.
Rules, 1952. The conditions are essential
pre-requisites, which have to be followed,
before a challenge to the auction is
entertained.
The
provisions,
are
mandatory.

19. The borrower never came
forward, to challenge the aforesaid
auction. Only the property of the
borrower, was put to auction. The
respondent No.3, is not the borrower, nor
was his property, put to auction under
Section 285H of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R.
Rules, 1952. The respondent No.3-Ram
Babu Shiv Hare, does not fall in the
category of persons created under the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, who are eligible, to put an
auction sale to challenge, before the
competent authority.

20. In the wake of the preceding
narrative, the petitioner does not have the
locus standi to apply to set aside the sale.
A similar view, was taken by this court, in
the case of Sanwar Pal Singh Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur
and others, reported at 2017 (8) ADJ 550.

21. The scheme of the auctions and
the provisions to set aside the auction sale
under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952,
has been extracted in the preceding
paragraphs. The provisions are a complete
code. The limited set of persons, who are
entitled to challenge an auction sale, are
clearly defined. The procedure to make a
challenge to such auction sale, is
specifically prescribed. The authorities, to
decide the validity of such challenge,
have
also
been
duly
identified.
1 All. Indrapal Kori And Others Vs. U.P.S.R.T.C.
1161

22. The facts of this case, as
disclosed from the records, and confirmed
by submission of the parties, establish the
fact that the challenge to the auction sale
was not instituted, before the competent
authority, created under Rule 285(I) of the
U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
&
Land
Reforms Rules, 1952 by an eligible
person. The competent authority, to
entertain the challenge to the auction, is
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, in terms of the U.P.Z.A.
& L.R. Rules, 1952. The person, whose
property was auctioned, is eligible to
assail the auction under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules, 1952.

23. Further, a pre-deposit of the
amount, as contemplated, under Rule
285(H) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952, for entertaining such application,
has not been made. Nothing has been
brought in the record or pointed out by the
learned counsel, to evidence such predeposit,
contemplated
under
Rule
285(H)of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952.

24. The records and details of
proceedings,
before
the
competent
authority, under Rule 285(I) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms
Rules, 1952, have also not been brought
in the record. Nor has anything to this
effect been pointed out by the learned
counsel. No pleadings, in regard to
satisfaction of pre-requisites, to challenge
the auction sale, under the U.P.Z.A. &
L.R. Rules, 1952 have been taken by the
respondent No.3, in the counter affidavit.
In any case, the order impugned, does not
arise from such proceedings.

25. The proceedings, initiated, at the
behest of the Naib Tehsildar, were clearly in
the teeth of the provisions of the rules, framed
under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Rules, 1952. No fault in the order
dated 20.06.2011, passed by the learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, could
be pin pointed by the learned counsel for the
respondents.

26. The order dated 14.10.2011 passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi is arbitrary and illegal. The
order dated 14.10.2011 is beyond jurisdiction.
The order dated 14.10.2011 cannot stand.The
order, dated 14.10.2011, passed by the learned
Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, is
quashed.

27. The order dated 20.06.2011, passed
by
the
learned
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, is affirmed.

28. The writ petition, is allowed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - C No. 21448 of 1999

Indrapal Kori And Others ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P.S.R.T.C. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Samir Sharma, Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.,

A. U.P. Industrial Dispute Act-Section 6
(2-A)- Violation of natural justice-not
supplying any documents or evidence in
support of charges. Tribunal has power
to substitute a lesser punishment in
place of punishment of discharge or