# Hriday Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1883
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-07
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 1006734 of 2013
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hriday-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51902
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Petitioner taken
agricultural loan-mortgaged half share of a landloan remained outstanding-land was put to
auction thrice- highest bidder was respondent
no.6-settled in his favour-sale certificate was
issued-auction was objected by Petitionerrejected being highly belated-Revision-rejectedimpugned- challenging that Assistant Collector
not empowered- Assistant Collector of first class
is empowered by the St. Government by a
notification to exercise function of a collector/s
286 of the Act in respect of any holding of a
defaulter- subject to sale approved by the
Collector-no infirmity in the proceedings.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Shiv Narain Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & Ors., 2011 SCC
OnLine All 1598

## Text

5 All. Hriday Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1883
(2024) 5 ILRA 1883
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 1006734 of 2013

Hriday Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sanjai Srivastava, Manoj Kumar, Rama Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
 S.C.

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Petitioner taken
agricultural loan-mortgaged half share of a landloan remained outstanding-land was put to
auction thrice- highest bidder was respondent
no.6-settled in his favour-sale certificate was
issued-auction was objected by Petitionerrejected being highly belated-Revision-rejectedimpugned- challenging that Assistant Collector
not empowered- Assistant Collector of first class
is empowered by the St. Government by a
notification to exercise function of a collector/s
286 of the Act in respect of any holding of a
defaulter- subject to sale approved by the
Collector-no infirmity in the proceedings.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

Shiv Narain Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & Ors., 2011 SCC
OnLine All 1598

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjai Srivastav, learned
counsel for petitioner as well as learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5
and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, along with
Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for
respondent No. 6, 8 to 11.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court being aggrieved by the orders dated
22.03.2013 and 09.12.2012 passed by Board
of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh as well as
Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda
thereby rejecting the petitionof the petitioner
challenging the auction proceedings.

3. Facts in brief necessary for
adjudication of the present case are that the
petitioner had taken an agricultural loan in the
year 1991 for an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-
from Allahabad Bank, District Bahraich to
purchase a tractor and a threasure. To secure
the said loan, the petitioner has mortgaged half
share of land situated at Khasra No. 595 and
675, Gata no. 291 situated at Village Pipri
Mohan, Pargana Fakarpur, Tehsil ?Mahasi,
District Bahraich,. The petitioner had repaid
only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with the bank
and the rest of the amount was not paid by him.

4. In light of the fact that the loan
remained outstanding, recovery proceedings
were initiated by the bank. The land was put to
auction thrice. On the first occasion, no one
came to participate in the said auction. On the
second occasion also, no one came to
participate in the said auction and the land was
purchased by the State Government for Rs.
1/-. Subsequently, on objection being filed, the
said auction was again set aside and the land
was put to auction to third occasion. It is on
this occasion that in the auction proceedings,
respondent No. 6 had participated and was the
successful bidder out of the three bidders and
accordingly the auction proceeding was
settled in favour of respondent No. 6.

5. The auction was held on 17.05.2004
and 1/4th of the amount was deposited on
the same day while the remaining 3/4th
1884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount was deposited within a period of 15
days and the auction proceedings were
confirmed by the order of the Assistant
Collector on 19.07.2004. A sale certificate
was also issued in favour of respondent No.
6 on 30.08.2004. For the first time, the
objections were filed by the petitioner
assailing the said auction on 16.09.2004
after the auction had been confirmed. The
District Magistrate had rejected the said
objections and against which order the
petitioner had approached this Court by
filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.
5785 (MS) of 2004 which was disposed of
by this Court by means of order dated
03.01.2005 directing the petitioner to file his
objection before the Commissioner as per
provisions contained in Rule 285 (I) of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules.

6. As directed by the High Court the
petitioner filed his objections on 31.01.2005
against the auction held on 17.05.2004 and
considering that the objections were highly
belated
they
were
rejected
by
the
Commissioner
on
19.12.2012.
The
Commissioner
while
rejecting
the
objections also looked into the merits of the
case and found that there was no infirmity in
confirmation of the said auction or in
conduct of the auction proceedings. The
petitioner being aggrieved by the order of
Commissioner dt. 19.12.2012 had preferred
a revision before the Board of Revenue
under Section 219 of the Land Revenue Act
which was also rejected by means of order
dated 22.08.2013.

7. The Board of Revenue also went to
entire factual matrix as well as the grounds
raised by the petitioner assailing the said
auction proceedings and it was found that all
the provisions of Rule 285 had been
followed by the authorities and accordingly
finding that the said objections to be bereft
of any merit, dismissed the revision
preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner
being aggrieved by all the aforesaid orders
has preferred the instant writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner while
assailing the order has submitted that firstly
the order dated 19.07.2004 by which the
auction proceedings were confirmed was
illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. He
submits that Assistant Collector /SubDivisional Magistrate, Bahraich did not
have any power to confirm the auction
inasmuch as the said confirmation could
have been done only by the Collector. He
submits that this aspect of the matter has
been duly considered by Division Bench of
this Court in the Case of Ram Avadh Tiwari
Vs. Sudharshan Tiwari and others reported
in 2009 (27) LCD 663 wherein this Court in
unequivocal words have held that it is only
the Collector who can confirm the sale and
not the Sub-Divisional Officer.

9. Accordingly, he submits that once it
is held that the confirmation was illegal then
the entire proceedings will have to be set
aside.

10. Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi,
learned counsel for respondents on the other
hand has opposed the writ petition. He has
submitted that the revenue authorities have
duly considered the objections of the
petitioner with regard to the allegation that
provisions of Rule 285 have not been
followed by the authority. He has further
submitted that as the petitioner did not
deposit outstanding amount he was arrested
and detained under civil prison. He was
released on his application an undertaking
given on 11.06.2002 that he shall repay the
entire outstanding amount of the loan. He
further submits that as per provisions
5 All. Hriday Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1885
contained in Rule 285 (I), the objections
have to be submitted within 30 days from
the date of the auction sale and in view of
the specific provisions contained in the rule
itself, no question arises for condonation of
delay and any objections filed after the
period prescribed are not liable to be
considered by the authorities. He has further
submitted that after confirmation of the sale
and issuance of the sale certificate, a sale
deed was executed in favour of respondent
No. 6 on 17.08.2013.

11. He further submits that prior to the
said auction, the notice was issued and was
served upon the petitioner as per the report
of the Collection Amin and the said report
confirms the fact that petitioner was duly
intimated about the auction proceedings. It
is on the aforesaid facts a prayer has been
made for dismissal of the writ petition.

12. I have heard learned counsel for
parties and perused the record.

13. The moot question which has
arisen for determination of this Court is with
regard to the adherence of the provisions
contained in Rule 285 (J) of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
and effect of noncompliance thereof. For the
sake of convenience, Rule 285 (J) of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Rules is quoted hereinbelow:-

"Rule 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 285-1, 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."

14. As per aforesaid rule, on the
expiry of 30 days from the date of sale if
no application preferred as provided for in
Rule 185(H)/Rule 285(I) of the Rules of
1952 or if such application has been made
and
rejected
by
the
Collector
or
Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an
order confirming the sale after satisfying
himself that the purchase of the land in
question by the bidder would not be in
contravention of the provisions of Section
154.

15. According to the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the
Collector has been prescribed in Section
3(4) according to which "Collector" means
an officer appointed as Collector under the
provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act,
1901 and includes an Assistant Collector
of the first class empowered by the State
Government by a notification in the
Gazette to discharge all or any of the
functions of a Collector under this Act."

16. From the aforesaid provisions, it is
clear that that the definition Collector is is
inclusive and the Assistant Collector of the
first
class
empoered
by
the
State
Government by a notification can discharge
all or any of his functions as per the said
notifications. This Court in the case of Ram
Avadh Tiwari
had
noticed
that
the
notification of the State Government dated
17.01.1976 wherein it was stated that the
same contain a scheme empowering the
Assistant Collector First Class who is
incharge of the Division, to exercise the
function of Collector under Section 286 of
the said Act in respect of any holding of a
defaulter of which he is a Bhoomidhar,
1886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sirdhar or Asami, subject to the conditions
that the such sale are approved by the
Collector.

17. The Court was of the view that
even though the Assistant collector has
been empowered by the said notification
but his exercise of power is subject to the
approval of the Collector. The Court
noticed the inconsistency between the
said notification and the rule position and
also considering the case of the Supreme
Court in the case of Shiv Narain Dubey
Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., 2011 SCC
OnLine All 1598 was of the view that
only the Collector is empowered to
confirm the sale as provided for under
Rule 285 (J) and not the Sub-Divisional
Officer.

18. It is noticed that in the case of Ram
Awadh, the Supreme Court had not
conclusively
decided
the
controversy
pertaining to interpretation of Rule 285(J)
and as to whether the Collector or the
Assistant collector would be empowered to
confirm the sale and had not expressed any
final opinion in the matter remitting the
matter to the High Court to decide the same
afresh.

19. In the remand proceedings, the
matter was finalised in the case of Shiv
Narain Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
2011 SCC OnLine All 1598.

20. In the remand proceedings, this
Court considered the fact that the case of
Ram
Avadh
Tiwari
was
decided
considering the Government Order dated
17.01.1976 which was superseded by
another
Government
Order
dated
10.08.1981. In the Government Order
dated 10.08.1981, it was stated that a state
of confusion is existing with regard to
power of the Collector to be exercised
under various provisions of the Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. In
Clause 2, it was clarified that except
provisions contained in Section 198 of the
Act of 1950, the Pargana Adhikaries
would be empowered to act in all cases
where the reference has been made to the
Collector. This Court in the case of Shiv
Narain Dubey(Supra) considered the
Government Order dated 10.08.1981 and
was of the view that the judgments in the
case of Ram Avadh Tiwari (supra) was
passed without noticing the Government
Order dated 30.05.1981 and consequently
was not good law and is per inqurium as
based on non-consideration of notification
dated 17.01.1976 which at that point of
time had been superceded.

21. It was conclusively held that the
SDO was empowered to hold the auction
and confirm the sale as per Rule of 285(J)
of t he Act of 1950.

22. In light of the above, the law in
this regard has been clarified which is
based on the Government Order dated
10.08.1981 and consequently this Court
after examining the entire conspectus of
the fact was of the view that in the present
case, the sale was confirmed by the
Assistant
Collector/SDM,Mahsee,
Bahraich who was fully empowered to
confirm the same and consequently there
is no infirmity in the order of confirmation
dated 19.07.2004. No other argument was
advanced assailing the impugned auction.

23. In light of the above, there is no
infirmity in the auction proceedings or the
confirmation of sale, hence the writ
petition is bereft of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
5 All. Ainul Hussain Siddiqui Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court U.P. Lucknow & Anr.
1887
(2024) 5 ILRA 1887
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1002642 of 2007

Ainul Hussain Siddiqui ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer
Labour
Court
U.P.
Lucknow & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Amar Nath Tripathi, Akhter Abbas, Asif
Iqbal, Manoj Kumar Sahu, Syed Husain
Abbas

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anupras Singh, J.N. Mathur

Disciplinary
Proceedings-Petitioner
appointed as an operator in the factory of
opposite party-several employees indulged
into
violent process for pressing
their
demands-Petitioner was suspended pending
disciplinary -suspension became redundantafter coming to the factory he actively
participated in illegal and unconstitutional
activities-enquiry-dismissed-
employer
submitted 28 documents before enquiry
officer and Petitioner St.d that he will not
produce any document in defence-declined to
cross -examine witnesses-findings of the
Enquiry Officer are based on cogent materialevidence
led
by
employer
remained
uncontroverted-no illegality.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Anil Kumar Vs Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC
378,

2. Rajeev Saxena Vs Punjab National Bank, 2018
(36) LCD 1218

3. Canara Bank Vs Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court & ors.2004 (102) FLR 1146

4. Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs Delhi Admn.: (1984)
4 SCC 635.

5. Airtech Private Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., 1983 SCC
Online ALL954

6. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra
Sharma , (2005) 3 SCC 401

7. Rajeev Saxena Vs Punjab National Bank, 2018
(36) LCD 1218

8. Canara Bank Vs Presiding Officer, Central
Government
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court & ors.2004 (102) FLR 1146

9. Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs Delhi Admn.: (1984)
4 SCC 635

10. Airtech Private Ltd. Vs St. of U.P., 1983 SCC
OnLine All 954

11. Shankar Chakravarti Vs Britannia Biscuit Co.
Ltd., (1979) 3 SCC 371

12. M.P. Electricity Board Vs Jagdish Chandra
Sharma, (2005) 3 SCC 401

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tripathi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.
Seema Dixit, the learned Standing Counsel
and Sri Anupras Singh, the learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of instant petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has challenged the
validity of an award dated 30.10.2006
passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour
Court, U.P., Lucknow in Case No. 103 of
2002 as well as an order dated 10.08.2000
passed by opposite party no. 2 dismissing