# In Ajay Upadhayay v. Collector, Ba - **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 780 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2009-08-18 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12929 of 1988 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-ajay-upadhayay-v-collector-ba-41455 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Arms Act-Section-17- Cancellation of gun licence -on ground of Solitary involvement in Criminal Case-finalized on basis of compromise-offence under Section 107/117-not arises out of any public disturbance-inspite of 17 years no counter affidavit filed-held-cancellation order wholly illegal. Held: Para-7 Having considered the matter on facts as well as in law, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 20.12.1988 and 26.08.1992 are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The arms license of the petitioner shall stand restored. Case law discussed: 1986 AWC 1166, 1966 SC 740, 2003 (1) ACJ 124 ## Text 780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 19. Accordingly the answer of the question formulated for our decision is in the negative and it is held that the provisions of the Court Fees Act as amended from time to time in the State of Uttar Pradesh is not ultra vires the State Legislature. 20. The appellant shall now deposit the court fee within four weeks from today, failing which appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. 21. If appellant so deposits the court fee, the appeal shall be placed for consideration on merit before the Judge in jurisdiction. 22. Reference is answered accordingly. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.12929 of 1988 Ram Asrey ...Petitioner Versus Collector, Banda & others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri W.H. Khan Sri J.H. Khan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Pradep Verma S.C. U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules 1956-Rule 285: Confirmation of auction sale- default repayment of loan-land of barrower in auctionconfirmed by Sub Divisional Officer-heldconfirmation order without jurisdictiononly the collector has power. Held: Para 3 & 4: Amongst the other grounds raised by the petitioner, this Court is confining the submission to only one ground, namely, that the sale could not have been confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer and could only have been confirmed by the Collector, as contemplated under Rule 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. In Ajay Upadhayay vs. Collector, Ballia & Ors., 2008 (26) LCD 623, a Division Bench of this Court, after analysing various Government Orders, issued from time to time, held that the Sub Divisional Officer/the Deputy Collector had no power to confirm or set aside the sale, and was only given the power to conduct the same. The Division Bench held that the power to confirm or aside the sale only lies with the Collector, and to no other authority. Similar view was again held by another Division Bench in Ram Awadh Tiwari vs. Sudarshan Tiwari & Ors., 2008(6) ALJ 24. Case law discussed: 2008 (26) LCD 623, 2008(6) ALJ 24. (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. List of hearing cases has been revised. The learned counsels for the private respondents are not present. 2. The petitioner is a landless labourer and took a loan from the bank for purchasing a pumping set. The petitioner committed a default and, accordingly, his land was attached and sold by public auction, in which, the bid of the respondent no. 5 was found to be the 3 All] Ashiq Hussain V. Commissioner and others 781 highest. The auction sale was consequently confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banda, the respondent no.2, by its order dated 31st May, 1988. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the confirmation of the sale, has filed the present writ petition. 3. Amongst the other grounds raised by the petitioner, this Court is confining the submission to only one ground, namely, that the sale could not have been confirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer and could only have been confirmed by the Collector, as contemplated under Rule 285-J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. 4. In Ajay Upadhayay vs. Collector, Ballia & Ors., 2008 (26) LCD 623, a Division Bench of this Court, after analysing various Government Orders, issued from time to time, held that the Sub Divisional Officer/the Deputy Collector had no power to confirm or set aside the sale, and was only given the power to conduct the same. The Division Bench held that the power to confirm or aside the sale only lies with the Collector, and to no other authority. Similar view was again held by another Division Bench in Ram Awadh Tiwari vs. Sudarshan Tiwari & Ors., 2008(6) ALJ 24. 5. In View of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the Sub Divisional Authority dated 31st May 1988 confirming the sale is patently illegal and cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Collector to pass a fresh order on the alleged auction, sale after hearing the objections raised by the petitioner. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2009 BEFORE THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35367 of 1992 Ashiq Hussain ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Subhash Kumar Sri Subodh Kumar Sri Udit Chandra Sri Vijai Kumar Dixit Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Arms Act-Section-17- Cancellation of gun licence -on ground of Solitary involvement in Criminal Case-finalized on basis of compromise-offence under Section 107/117-not arises out of any public disturbance-inspite of 17 years no counter affidavit filed-held-cancellation order wholly illegal. Held: Para-7 Having considered the matter on facts as well as in law, this Court finds that the impugned orders dated 20.12.1988 and 26.08.1992 are unsustainable and are accordingly set aside. The arms license of the petitioner shall stand restored. Case law discussed: 1986 AWC 1166, 1966 SC 740, 2003 (1) ACJ 124 (Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.) 1. Heard Shri Udit Chandra holding brief of Shri Subhodh Kumar, learned