# Devesh Chandra Dwivedi v. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 315
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1003201 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devesh-chandra-dwivedi-v-commissioner-faizabad-ors-53120
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 285-H, 285-I, 285-J - Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 - Section 154 - Writ Petition -
filed
by
petitioner
(auction
purchaser)
-
challenges
the
order
of
the
Additional
Commissioner, along with prior mutation-related
orders of December 1999, in respect of land in
question auctioned in his favour in 1989 after its
original owner defaulted on a bank loan -
original tenure holder took loan from the Bank,
against the said land in question - due to
default in loan payment - DM appointed SDM to
hold the auction - SDM held auction as per Rule
- in March 1989, auction sale was conducted,
by SDM in favour of petitioner - SDM confirmed
the auction sale on June 1989 - however, under
the political pressure and due to extraneous
reasons cancelled the auction sale deed in July,
1989 - subsequently, petitioner filed objection -
rejected in Feb. 1990 - later on, petitioner
(auction purchaser) approached to the DM - on
instruction, SDM issued order of sale-certificate
in Jan. 1992, which was registered in the office
of Sub-Registrar in favour of the petitioner -
despite of sale confirmation and auction sale
deed in favour of petitioner he could not get
possession on the land nor sale amount is ever
returned - on the other hand, in absence of
objection on behalf of borrower auction sale
was
become
confirmed
after
30
days
automatically by fiction of law - further, after
death of borrower his son fraudulently deposited
the money in bank in June, 1999 and thereafter,
executed a sale-deep of the land in question to
a third person, in whose favour tehsildar
mutated his name on revenue record - against
which petitioner (auction purchaser) approached
to the SDM - SDM set-aside the order of
mutation - Revision - additional commissioner
set-aside the order of SDM - present writ
petition - court, after thoroughly examining the
legal provisions under Rule 285-H to 285-J of
the UPZA & LR Rules and the facts on record,
held that, (i) the auction sale of the disputed
land in favour of the petitioner attained finality
after no objections were filed within the
stipulated 30-day period, - (ii) making mutation
by the Tehsildar and sale-deed executed by the
bank in favour of third person were legally
invalid and amounted to concealment of
material facts - (iii) further, the SDM had rightly
restored the petitioner's name, - and (v) the
Commissioner has committed gross illegality in
reversing this without due consideration of the
statutory provisions - consequently, the writ
petition is allowed - impugned judgment and
orders are set-aside - direction issued to the
SDM to hand over possession of the auctionedland to the petitioner and Tehsildar to grant
mutation in his favour within four weeks. (Para
no. 11, )

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

4 All. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
315
noted that if in spite of any column
being left blank, the insurance company accepts
the premium and issues a policy bond, it is
presumed to have waived of its right to
repudiate the policy on ground of suppression
or non-disclosure of a material fact at a later
stage. Thus, it is the burden of the respondents
to verify the details provided by the insured
available with the office of the LIC before
issuance of policy bond. Mere shifting of their
burden upon the petitioner from his rightful
claim would not help the respondents in any
manner specially when the previous policy as
well as the present policy are given by the same
insurer.

26. It is to be noted that the Supreme
Court in the case of Mahaveer Sharma
(Supra), after examining the judgments in the
cases of Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod
(Supra), Manmohan Nanda (Supra) and
Mahakali
Sujatha
(Supra),
categorically
affirmed the principles established in the case of
Manmohan Nanda (Supra). The principles as
culled out in paragraph 22 as above, clearly
require the insurer to be more vigilant while
issuing a policy. As categorically stated in
paragraph 55.4 of the judgment in the case of
Manmohan Nanda (Supra), it is the duty of
the Insurance Company to ask the insured to fill
up any particular column that may have been
left blank and if the insurer does not do so and
goes ahead in issuing the insurance bond, it
cannot, at a later stage, repudiate the contract on
the ground of suppression or non-disclosure of
a particular fact. In the instant case, the
petitioner had only taken policies from the LIC
and a minimum due diligence by the LIC
would have revealed that the petitioner had
taken a previous policy from the LIC. The LIC
not seeking any clarification with regard to the
blank column and subsequently accepting the
premiums and issuing the insurance bond, has
waived its right to repudiate the contract on the
basis of suppression of material facts or nondisclosure of material facts. What is to be
further noted is that any non-disclosure in the
present case, was not with regard to health of
the petitioner and the petitioner died of a sudden
heart attack that was not connected to any
previous ailments. In light of the same, the
particular action in the instant case of
repudiating the contract by the LIC is arbitrary
and
against
the
principles
of
law
established by the Supreme Court.

27. The order passed by the
Insurance Ombudsman is also of no
assistance to the respondents as the same is
clearly an order without application of
mind as pointed out in paragraph 14 herein
above.

28. In light of the above, the
impugned orders are quashed and set-aside
with a direction upon the LIC to make
payment of the insured sum in accordance
with law to the petitioner within a period of
six weeks from date.

29. With the above directions, the
writ petition is disposed of.

30. Since a point of law was
involved, there shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1003201 of 2002

Devesh Chandra Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
H.S. Jain, A.K. Balediha, D.C. Mukherjee,
Hari Om Singh, Pradeep Shukla, Pt. S.
Chandra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Balediha, B.K. Singh,
M.A. Khan, M.A. Siddiqui, R.N. Gupta

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950 -
Article 226 - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 285-H, 285-I, 285-J - Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules, 1952 - Section 154 - Writ Petition -
filed
by
petitioner
(auction
purchaser)
-
challenges
the
order
of
the
Additional
Commissioner, along with prior mutation-related
orders of December 1999, in respect of land in
question auctioned in his favour in 1989 after its
original owner defaulted on a bank loan -
original tenure holder took loan from the Bank,
against the said land in question - due to
default in loan payment - DM appointed SDM to
hold the auction - SDM held auction as per Rule
- in March 1989, auction sale was conducted,
by SDM in favour of petitioner - SDM confirmed
the auction sale on June 1989 - however, under
the political pressure and due to extraneous
reasons cancelled the auction sale deed in July,
1989 - subsequently, petitioner filed objection -
rejected in Feb. 1990 - later on, petitioner
(auction purchaser) approached to the DM - on
instruction, SDM issued order of sale-certificate
in Jan. 1992, which was registered in the office
of Sub-Registrar in favour of the petitioner -
despite of sale confirmation and auction sale
deed in favour of petitioner he could not get
possession on the land nor sale amount is ever
returned - on the other hand, in absence of
objection on behalf of borrower auction sale
was
become
confirmed
after
30
days
automatically by fiction of law - further, after
death of borrower his son fraudulently deposited
the money in bank in June, 1999 and thereafter,
executed a sale-deep of the land in question to
a third person, in whose favour tehsildar
mutated his name on revenue record - against
which petitioner (auction purchaser) approached
to the SDM - SDM set-aside the order of
mutation - Revision - additional commissioner
set-aside the order of SDM - present writ
petition - court, after thoroughly examining the
legal provisions under Rule 285-H to 285-J of
the UPZA & LR Rules and the facts on record,
held that, (i) the auction sale of the disputed
land in favour of the petitioner attained finality
after no objections were filed within the
stipulated 30-day period, - (ii) making mutation
by the Tehsildar and sale-deed executed by the
bank in favour of third person were legally
invalid and amounted to concealment of
material facts - (iii) further, the SDM had rightly
restored the petitioner's name, - and (v) the
Commissioner has committed gross illegality in
reversing this without due consideration of the
statutory provisions - consequently, the writ
petition is allowed - impugned judgment and
orders are set-aside - direction issued to the
SDM to hand over possession of the auctionedland to the petitioner and Tehsildar to grant
mutation in his favour within four weeks. (Para
no. 11, )

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Jagat Pal Singh Vs St. of UP & ors.- 1994
(12) LCD 612 - DB Allahabad.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shiv
Ganesh Singh, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents-State.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner is challenging
judgment and order dated 28.08.2002
passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Faizabad Division , Faizabad
(Opposite party no.2 in Revision No.5583,
contained in Annexure-27 to the writ
petition and order dated 20.12.1999 passed
by the Additional/ Naib Tehsildar rejecting
the application of the petitioner for
mutation, contained in Annexure-20 and
order dated 21.12.1999 passed by the
Additional/ Naib Tehsildar directing to
record the name of Anjum Faroz over the
4 All. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
317
land in dispute, contained in Annexure-21
with further prayer that the direction in the
nature of Mandamus be issued to the
opposite parties not to implement the
impugned judgment and order dated
28.08.2002 passed by the opposite party
no.2.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
one Jagesher son of Hari Charan tookloan
from bank of Baroda in the year of 1981
against Plot No.1025 area 0-8-0, plot
No.1344 area 0-3-10 and Plot No.961 area
0-2-5 situated at Village Katka Khanpur,
Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur. Due to
default of loan payment, District Magistrate
appointed S.D.M. Sadar to hold the auction
and S.D.M. Sadar, Sultanpur held auction
as per Rule on 8.3.1989. Auction sale was
conducted on 8.3.1989 by S.D.M. in favour
of petitioner i.e. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi.

 S.D.M. made confirm the action
sale by order dated 23.06.1989. S.D.M.,
Sadar, under political pressure and due to
extraneous reasons cancelled the auction
sale dated 8.3.1989 by order dated
28.07.1989 without power and jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed objection
before District Magistrate against order
dated 28.071989 under Rule 285H but
District Magistrate by order dated 9.2.1990
refused to entertain with observation that
this remedy is open to aggrieved person
whose land is auctioned and it is not for
who has purchased the land.

Petitioner
(auction
purchaser)
approached
the
District
Magistrate,
Sultanpur narrated the whole facts. He
instructed to contact SDM, the SDM, Sadar
issued
order
of
sale
certificate
on
10.01.1992 ignoring earlier order of SDM
dated 28.07.1989 which was without
jurisdiction. Sale Officer executed sale
deed on 10.01.1992 in office of Sub
Registrar, Sadar, Tehsil Sultanpur in favour
of petitioner-Devesh Chandra Dwivedi and
the same is still intact and not cancelled in
any proceeding but despite of sale
confirmation and auction sale deed in
favour of petitioner he could not get
possession on the land nor sale amount is
ever returned to petitioner.

Shri Jageshar took loan and his
legal heir did not file objection within 30
days before Collector or Commissioner,
Faizabad under Rule 285-I of UPZA & LR
Rules,1952. As such, as per statute Rule
285-J
the
aution
sale
was
become
confirmed after 30 days automatically by
fiction of law.

After Death of Shri Jageshar, his
son by making concealment of fact
deposited money in bank on 16.06.1999 in
Bank and executed sale deed illegally in
favour of one Sri Anjum Faroz on
23.06.1999. Tehsildar Sadar by order dated
20.12.1999 (Annexure-20 of the writ
petition) passed the order of mutation.
Against the order executing sale deed, the
petitioner approached the SDM stating the
fact that the land in question has been
auctioned and sale has been confirmed in
favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, S.D.M.
by order dated 27.11.2000 (Annexure
No.24) set aside the order of Tehsildar and
restored the name of petitioner.

Against
the
aforesaid
order,
revision was filed before the Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad. Commissioner Vide order dated
28.8.2002 set aside the order of the SDM
which is not challenged in the present writ
petition.

4. Assailing the impugned order,
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that Rule 285-J of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules provides that on expiration of 30
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
days from the date of sale if no such
application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or
Rule 285-I has been made or if such
application has been made and rejected by
Collector or Commissioner, the Collector
shall pass an order confirming the sale after
satisfying himself that the purchase of land in
question by the bidder would not be in
contravention of the provisions of Section
154. In this view of the matter, the order
passed under this Rule shall become final.

5. Next submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that under Rule
285-A, power of the Assistant Collector/
SDM is delegated by Collector, as such once
the sale was become confirmed on 23.6.1989
passed by the SDM, thereafter he was having
no authority in law to review or recall his
power which was delegated by the Collector.

6. Next submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
Additional Commissioner in passing the
order
dated
28.8.2002
has
committed
manifest error of law by concealing the
material fact that son of Jageshar deposited
money in bank on 16.6.1999 and bank
executed sale deed illegally in favour of one
Sri Anjum Faroz on 23.6.1999. Tehsildar,
Sadar by order dated 20.12.1999 passed the
order of mutation.

7. Next submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that Appellate
Court has illegally been set aside the order
passed by the SDM on 27.11.2000. He
further submits that under Rule 285-J of
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rule, 1952, after expiry of
30 days there is provision of statutory
confirmation of auction sale.

 In support of his submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon a judgment rendered
in the case of Jagat Pal Singh v. State of
U.P.
and
others
reported
in
1994(12)LCD Page 612 DB Allahabad.

8. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submits that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
the Additional Commissioner and it is just
and valid order. Next submission of learned
Standing Counsel is that after deposit of
money by the son of Jageshar, Bank
executed sale deed in favour of Sri
Anjum Faroz.

9.
Having
heard
the
rival
submissions of learned counsel for the
parties, I have perused the material on
the record as well as case-law cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. To decide the controversy in
hand, provisions of Rules 285-H, 285-I
and 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,
1952 are being quoted hereinbelow:

 "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
purchaser, a sum equal to 5 per cent of
the purchase money; and

(b) for payment on account of
the arrear, the amount specified in the
proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 as that
for the recovery of whichthe 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 cost of the sale.
4 All. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
319

On the making of such deposit,
the Collector shall pass an order setting
aside the sale:

Provided that if a person applied
under Rule 258-I to set aside such sale he
shall not be entitledto make an application
under this rule.

(2)[***]
SYNOPSIS

1.
Extension
of
period
of
depositing 3. Setting aside of sale.......368
amount
under
Rule
285-H.....368
4.
Objection under ................369

2. Setting aside of sale -Material
irregularity ........................................368

1.
Extension
of
period
of
depositing amount under Rule 285-H.-
The power of Court to extend the period of
depositing amount stipulated in Rule 285-H
of Rules of 1952, is not in any manner
fettered by Rule 285-J. High Court under
Article 226 has power not only to issue
prerogative writs but it can also issue such
orders as may be deemed fit and proper in
the ends of justice for the enforcement of
rights conferred by Part III and for any
other purpose.

2. Setting aside of sale- Material
irregularity.- Rules provide that any person
whose
holding
or
other
immovable
property has been sold under the Act, may
at any time within 30 days from the date of
sale, apply to the Collector to have the sale
set aside on his depositing in Collector's
Office the amount enumerated in clause (1)
to (3) of the Rules.

3. Setting aside of sale.- On
expiration of 30 days from the date of sale,
the Collector was enjoined to pass an order
confirming the sale after satisfying himself
that the purchase of land in question by the
bidder would not contravene the provisions
of Section 154 of the Act, provided that no
application as mentioned in Rule 285-H
and 285-I of Rules has been made for
cancellation of auction sale or if made had
been rejected by the Collector.

In order XXI, Rule 89 as well
as in Rule 285-H, U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, the
sale shall be set aside if the person
whose prroperty is sold applies to have
the sale set aside on his depositing the
amount referred to in these provisions.
The application is consequent to the
deposit. Section 5 of the Limitation Act
applies to limitation in appeals and
applications but not to the act of
deposit of money, which is the precondition for filing the application for
setting aside the sale, for this reason
too, Section 5 of Limitation Act has no
application.

4. Objection under.- From
Rule 285-H, it appears that only the
owner of holding has right to prefer
objection within 30 days of auction sale
for setting aside sale and the Collector
has power to set aside the sale. Further,
a plain reading of Rule 285(1) shows
that within aperiod of thirty days from
the date of sale, application can be
made to the Commissioner to set aside
the sale on the ground of some material
irregularity etc, since under Rle 285-H,
285(1), the objection can be made by
any person before the Commissioner.

[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.

(ii)[***]
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii)
The
order
of
the
Commissioner passed under this rule shall
be final.
SYNOPSIS

1.
Alternative
Remedy
to
approach
4. Nature and scope of
...........369

Board of Revenue ................369

5. Order of Commissioner-shall be

2.
Maintainability
of
Revision....369
final
..............................370

3. Maintainability of special
appeal...369

1.
Alternative
Remedy
to
approach Board of Revenue.-Where no
request was made before the Trial Court by
revisionist for issuance of a decree, nor any
satisfactory reason was given for delay so
caused, there was no justification to accept
such request As findings of Courts below
are concurrent, no jurisdictional error is
committed, the revision fails for no
grounds.

2. Maintainability of revision.-
No revision could be filed before the
Commissioner by a person who could make
an application under Section 173 or 174 of
the Act or under Rule 285-H or 285-I of the
Act and Rules. Otherwise, the bar put by
Section 175 of the Act and Rule 285-K of
Rules, will become meaningless.

3. Maintainability of special
appeal.-
The
Commissioner
records
findings after giving notice to parties and
giving them opportunities of adducing oral
and
documentary
evidence.
The
controversy
is
decided
fairly
and
objectively on the basis of evidence adduc
ed by parties. Such decision has to be
consistent with principles of natural justice
and general principle of law.

4. Nature and scope of.- While
considering the provisions contained in
Rule 285-I, the principle of the Golden or
purposive rule of interpretation should be
applied . It shall always not be possible for
the farmers or persons belonging to lower
cadre of society to approach the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Rule 285-I of the Rules, provides
for
filing
an
objection
before
the
Commissioner. Therefore, the application
filed
before
the
Collector
is
not
maintainable and it is open to the petitioner
to approach the Commissioner.

5. Order of Commissioner- Shall
be final.- The time limit given in Rule 285-I
is 30 days from the date of sale. Admittedly,
sale objection was filed beyond 30 days. It
has also been mentioned in this Rule that s
ale shall not be set aside on the ground of
irregularity or mistake in publishing or
conducting it unless, the applicant proves
to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that
he has sustained substantial injury by
reason of such irregularity or mistake. Rule
285-I (iii) makes it clear that order of the
Commissioner passed under this Rule shall
be final.

285-J. On the expiration of thirty
days from the date of the sale if no such
application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H
or Rule 285-I, has been made or if such
application has been made and rejected by
the Collector or the Commissioner, the
Collector shall pass an order confirming
the sale after satisfying himself that the
purchase of land in question by the bidder
would not be in contravention of the
provisions of Section 154. Even order
passed under this rule shall be final.

11. On perusal of the provisions
contained under Rule 285-J, it is evident
that on expiration of 30 days from the date
of sale if no such application as is
mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I has
been made or if such application has been
made and rejected by the Collector or the
4 All. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
321
Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an
order confirming the sale after satisfying
himself that the purchase of land in
question by the bidder would not be in
contravention of the provisions of Section
154 and the order passed under the said
Rules shall be final. Therefore, the
Tehsildar, Sadar has committed manifest
error of law in passing the order dated
20.12.1999 making mutation on the sale
deed executed by the bank concealing the
material fact to Shri Anjum Faroz.

12. The S.D.M., Sadar vide order
dated 27.11.2000 set aside the order of
Tehsildar considering the material on
record and restored the name of the
petitioner.

13.
In
support
of
the
his
submission,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
placed
reliance
upon
the
judgment rendered in the case of Jagat Pal
Singh (supra). Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the
judgment is extracted hereinbelow:

 "4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
opposite parties 1,2 and 3 and the learned
counsel for opposite party no.6 have been
heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the property which was
sold for realization of the amount by means
of the auction dated 10.2.1976 was
purchased by the petitioner. According to
him the entire amount of the bid was
deposited by the petitioner on 24.2.1976.
Thereafter
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer
confirmed the auction by his order dated
19.3.1976, a copy of which is annexure-1 to
the writ petition. A perusal of this order
goes to show that the Sub-Divisional
Officer while confirming the auction
granted time till 25th March, 1976 to the
objector to get the land released after
depositing the amount due. It may be
recalled at this stage that some objection
was filed by Smt. Sursata Devi, opposite
party no.4, before the Sub-Divisional
Officer. Now the question which arises in
the present case is as to whether the SubDivisional Officer had power under the
provisions of the Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act and the Rules framed
thereunder to confirm the sale and whether
he had also power to grant time for
payment of the amount due to the objector
simultaneously with the confirmation of the
sale. Taking the second point at fist it may
be stated that the sale was confirmed by the
Sub-Divisional
Officer.
The
authority
confirming the sale cannot grant time to the
objector to pay or deposit the amount for
which the recovery proceedings were taken
or for which the sale was held. In this
connection certain provisions of the Rules
framed under the Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act have to be perused.
There are two provisions in the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rule, 1952
under which the attached property is sold,
These are Section 284 and Section 286 of
the Z.A. & L. R. Act. Rule 285 A provides
that every sale under Sections 284 and 286
shall be made either by the Collector in
person or by an Assistant Collector
specially appointed by him in this behalf. It
goes to show that the sale under both the
above sections 284 and 286 of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, is to be conducted by the Collector in
person or by an Assistant Collector
specially appointed by him in this behalf.
Rule 285-C of the Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 provides that if
the defaulter pays the arrears in respect of
which the land or other immovable
property is to be sold, at any time before
the day fixed for the sale, to the person
authorized to collect the amount in arrears
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or to the person appointed under Rule 285A to conduct the sale, the sale officer, on
being satisfied of the payment, shall stay
the sale. After the sale is held then the
person who has purchased the property i.e.
the auction purchaser shall have to deposit
25% of the amount of the bid forthwith and
if that amount is not deposited then the sale
is to take place again. This provision is
made in Rule 285-D of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. The
entire amount of the purchase money is to
be deposited within 15 days of the sale by
the purchaser in the district treasury or
sub-treasury and in case of default in
deposit of the amount, the amount of 25%
which was initially deposited at the fall of
the hammer shall stand forfeited to
Government and the property shall be resold . This provision is made under Rule
285-E of the Zaminidari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules. Rule 285-F of the
above Rules further provides that if the
proceed of the sale which is eventually
made are less then the price bid by such
defaulting purchaser then the difference
shall be recoverable from him as if it were
an arrear of the revenue. Thereafter the
provisions of Rule 285-H are there to
safeguard the interest of the person whose
property has been sold. It provides that 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 the
payment on account of the arrear, the
amount specified in the proclamation in
Z.A. Form 74, for the recovery of which the
sale was ordered, the costs of the sale and
a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase
money, for payment to the purchaser, less
any amount which might have been
deposited. On making such deposits the
Collector shall pass an order setting aside
the sale. This provisions has been made in
order to give a chance to the person whose
immovable property has been sold to retain
the same subject to the deposit of the
amounts specified in this Rule. 5% amount
of the auction money deposited by the
person whose immovable property has been
sold is to be paid to the auction purchaser
in order to compensate him for the loss
occurred to him. This Rule has a proviso
attached to it which says that if a person
applied under Rule 285-I to set aside such
sale then he shall not be entitled to make an
application under this Rule.

6. Rule 285-J of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules provides
that after the expiration of thirty days from
the date of the sale if no such application
as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285I, has been made or if such application has
been made and rejected by the Collector or
the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass
an
order confirming
the
sale
after
satisfying himself that the purchase of land
in question by the bidder would not be in
contravention of the provisions of Section
154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act. Section 154 of the above
Act deals with restriction on transfer by a
bhumidhar where the land exceeds as per
limit fixed by this Section. Thus the
Collector has no option but to confirm the
sale on the expiry of 30 days if no objection
has been made under Rule 285-H or Rule
285-I or if made but has been rejected by
the Collector or the Commissioner and the
Collector is duty bound to confirm the sale
after satisfying himself that the provisions
of Section 154 of the Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act have not been
contravened. Thus a perusal of this
provision goes to show that the Collector
has no power to grant time to the person
whose property has been sold. The time
which is fixed by the statute can be availed
4 All. Devesh Chandra Dwivedi Vs. Commissioner Faizabad & Ors.
323
by the person whose property has been sold
but cannot be extended by the Collector
specially after the sale has been confirmed.
Therefore the time granted by the SubDivisional Officer on 19.3.1976 to the
person whose property has been sold, to
deposit the amount, has no legal sanctity
and, as such, has to be ignored."

14. On perusal of the paragraph 4
of the aforesaid judgment, it is transpired
that after auction, the entire amount was
deposited in pursuance to an auction.
Thereafter,
Sub-Divisional
officer
confirmed the auction by his order dated
19.3.1976
and
thereafter
sale
was
confirmed and after confirmation of sale,
the Sub-Divisional Officer cannot grant
time to the objector to pay or deposit the
amount for which the recovery proceedings
were taken or for which the sale was held.
It was also considered that Rule 285-A
provides that every sale under Sections 284
and 286 shall be made either by the
Collector in person or by an Assistant
Collector specially appointed by him in this
behalf.

 In the present case, the S.D.M.
was specially appointed by the Collector to
make auction of the property.

15. It has also been provide that
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 the payment on account
of the arrear, the amount specified in the
proclamation in Z.A. Form 74, for the
recovery of which the sale was ordered.

 In the present case, for more than
30 days, no application nor deposit was
made by the person whose land was
auctioned.

16. In view of the provisions
contained in Rule 285-H and Rule 285-I,
the Collector has no option but to confirm
the sale on expiry of 30 days, if no
objection has been made under the
aforesaid Rules.

17. In the present case, auction
sale was confirmed by the S.D.M. who
was authorized by the Commissioner
for auction sale of the property,
therefore no illegality whatsoever has
been committed in confirming the
auction sale made by the S.D.M. On
deposit of money by the land holder of
the property of the auction sale to the
Bank, sale deed was executed which is
nullified in the eyes of law and no
reliance can be placed on the sale deed
executed by the Bank and the order of
the S.D.M. setting aside the order of
mutation
is
just
and
valid.
The
Commissioner has committed gross
illegality in passing the impugned order
dated 28.8.2002 and has not been taken
into
consideration
the
provisions
referred hereinabove and the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner.

18. Considering in totality of
facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petition succeeds and is hereby
allowed. Impugned judgment and order
dated
28.08.2002
passed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner
(Judicial),
Faizabad Division , Faizabad (Opposite
party
no.2
in
Revision
No.5583,
contained in Annexure-27 to the writ
petition) and order dated 20.12.1999 passed
by the Additional/ Naib Tehsildar rejecting
the application of the petitioner for
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mutation, contained in Annexure-20 and
order dated 21.12.1999 passed by the
Additional/ Naib Tehsildar are set aside.

19. However, the S.D.M., Sadar,
Sultanpur is directed to hand over the
possession of Plot No.1025 Area 0-8-0, Plot
No.1344 Area 0-3-10 and Plot No.961 Area 02-5 situated at Village Katka Khanpur, Tehsil
Sadar, District Sultanpur after granting
mutation on the basis of confirmation of sale
in view of above-referred provisions to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from
the date of production of a certified copy of
this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ Tax No. 303 of 2025

M/s Manoj Glass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shobhit Kant, Anshuman Asthana

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 - Sections 44(1),
73(9) & 73(10) - Writ of Certiorari - ExParte Assessment Order - Limitation Period -
Extension of Time Limit by Notification -
Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy of Appeal.

Held:
The
petitioner
challenged
an
ex-parte
assessment order dated 13.12.2023 under
Section 73(9) of the U.P. GST Act, 2017,
imposing a tax liability of Rs.1,12,827.38,
penalty
of
Rs.20,000,
and
interest
of
Rs.1,14,787.42, contending it was timebarred under Section 73(10). The petitioner
relied on *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*, which
quashed similar orders for the financial year
2017-18 as beyond the three-year limit from
the extended annual return filing date of
05.02.2020
(i.e.,
05.02.2023).
The
respondents
cited
notifications
dated
21.07.2022
(effective
from
01.03.2020,
extending the limit to 30.09.2023) and
24.04.2023
(effective
from
31.03.2023,
extending to 31.12.2023) for the financial
year 2017-18. The Court held that the
notification
dated
21.07.2022,
not
considered in *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024*,
validly extended the limitation period, and
the order dated 13.12.2023 was within the
extended
limit
of
31.12.2023.
As
the
notifications
were
unchallenged
and
an
appellate remedy was available, the writ
petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Writ
petition
dismissed;
alternative
remedy of appeal available.

Case Law Discussed:

1. *Writ Tax No. 264 of 2024* - Orders
under Section 73(9) for financial year 2017-18
quashed as time-barred, but decision overlooked
notification
dated
21.07.2022
extending
limitation.

Observation:
The Court observed that the notification dated
21.07.2022,
effective
from
01.03.2020,