# Jagat Pal Singh Peitioner v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1055
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-12
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 1003197 of 2010
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagat-pal-singh-peitioner-v-state-of-u-p-51407
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Rule 285B -
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section
60 - Constitution of India - Article 300A -
Auction Sale - Right of Redemption - Arbitrary
Action - The petitioner, Jagat Pal Singh,
challenged the auction of his agricultural land in
Raebareli, conducted on 16.06.1991 by the
Collector to recover an outstanding loan of Rs.
17,929 (later Rs. 69,929) from Bank of Baroda,
taken in 1975. The St. purchased the land for
Rs. 1/- due to no bidders, with mutation
recorded
on
05.06.1992.
The
petitioner,
unaware until 2010, claimed he had repaid Rs.
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
77,000 by 2002 and argued the auction violated
his right to redemption and was arbitrary. Held:
The court found the auction illegal, as Rule
285B of the U.P.Z. & L.R. Act requires the
Collector to bid up to the arrear amount, not a
nominal Rs. 1/-, which was below any
reasonable reserve price for 1.7 hectares. Citing
Union Bank of India Vs Official Liquidator
((2000) 5 SCC 274), Divya Manufacturing Co. Vs
U.O.I. (AIR 2000 SC 2346), and Gajraj Jain Vs
St. of Bihar ((2004) 7 SCC 151), the court
emphasized that auctions must ensure fair
valuation and transparency. The St.'s action
amounted to confiscation, violating Article 300A,
which prohibits deprivation of property without
due process. The right of redemption under
Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act
persists until a registered sale deed extinguishes
it, which did not occur here. The auction and
mutation orders were quashed, and the
respondents were restrained from interfering
with the petitioner's possession unless due
process is followe The petitioner was granted
liberty to settle the loan with the Bank in
installments and seek mutation of his name in
revenue records.

The petition was allowe

Case Law Cited:

## Text

2 All. Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1055
government order dated 28.7.2006, which
provides that gratuity shall not be made
applicable to the employees working on
daily wages. To consider the submission of
the learned Standing Counsel to the
challenge of the order of the Controlling
Authority specially with regard to the
Government Order dated 28.07.2006, we
will have to take into consideration the
relevant provisions of the Gratuity Act
relating to applicability of other laws.
Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972 provides for the following:-

14.
Act
to
override
other
enactments, etc.

-The provisions of this Act or any
rule made thereunder shall have effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any enactment other
than this Act or in any instrument or
contract having effect by virtue of any
enactment other than this Act.

15. Accordingly, the petitioners
cannot invoke the provisions of any
government
order
contrary
to
the
provisions of the Repayment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 and in case there is any conflict,
the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of
1972 provide that the Payment of Gratuity
Act would override any such government
orders and consequently, merely because
the government order dated 28.07.2006
provides for non-payment of gratuity to the
persons employed on daily-wages cannot
be a ground for denial of gratuity to the
respondent no. 1. The provisions of
government order dated 28.07.2006 cannot
be invoked to deny benefit of gratuity to
the petitioner as it would not operate and
override the provisions of Gratuity Act,
1972and as per provisions of Section 14 of
the Act of 1972, will have to give way to
the beneficial provisions of Act, 1972.
15. Accordingly, the challenge
made by the petitioners to the impugned
order fails and after examining the
impugned order, this Court does not find
any infirmity. Accordingly, the petition
being devoid of merits is dismissed.
However, it is provided that the impugned
order is only modified only to the extent
that instead of compound interest, the
workman shall be entitled to simple interest
on the admissible amount of gratuity from
the date when it was admissible till the date
of actual payment.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1055
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 1003197 of 2010

Jagat Pal Singh ...Peitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dhirendra Singh, Aditya Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Srivastava

Civil Law - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Rule 285B -
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section
60 - Constitution of India - Article 300A -
Auction Sale - Right of Redemption - Arbitrary
Action - The petitioner, Jagat Pal Singh,
challenged the auction of his agricultural land in
Raebareli, conducted on 16.06.1991 by the
Collector to recover an outstanding loan of Rs.
17,929 (later Rs. 69,929) from Bank of Baroda,
taken in 1975. The St. purchased the land for
Rs. 1/- due to no bidders, with mutation
recorded
on
05.06.1992.
The
petitioner,
unaware until 2010, claimed he had repaid Rs.
1056 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
77,000 by 2002 and argued the auction violated
his right to redemption and was arbitrary. Held:
The court found the auction illegal, as Rule
285B of the U.P.Z. & L.R. Act requires the
Collector to bid up to the arrear amount, not a
nominal Rs. 1/-, which was below any
reasonable reserve price for 1.7 hectares. Citing
Union Bank of India Vs Official Liquidator
((2000) 5 SCC 274), Divya Manufacturing Co. Vs
U.O.I. (AIR 2000 SC 2346), and Gajraj Jain Vs
St. of Bihar ((2004) 7 SCC 151), the court
emphasized that auctions must ensure fair
valuation and transparency. The St.'s action
amounted to confiscation, violating Article 300A,
which prohibits deprivation of property without
due process. The right of redemption under
Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act
persists until a registered sale deed extinguishes
it, which did not occur here. The auction and
mutation orders were quashed, and the
respondents were restrained from interfering
with the petitioner's possession unless due
process is followe The petitioner was granted
liberty to settle the loan with the Bank in
installments and seek mutation of his name in
revenue records.

The petition was allowe

Case Law Cited:

1. Union Bank of India Vs Official Liquidator,
(2000) 5 SCC 274

2. Divya Manufacturing Co. (P) Lt Vs U.O.I.,
AIR 2000 SC 2346

3. Gajraj Jain Vs St. of Bihar, (2004) 7 SCC 151

4. Surendra Pal Singh Vs Vijaya Bank, Civil
Appeal No. 6843 of 2023

Narandas Karsondas Vs S. Kamtam, 1976 CJ
(SC) 287

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

1. Heard Shri Giriraj Prajapati,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Aditya
Tiwari, learned counsel, learned Standing
Counsel for the State, Shri Prashant Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for respondentBank and perused the material available on
record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has challenged the
auction proceedings conducted at the
behest of the Collector, District Raebareli
whereby the agricultural land of the
petitioner situated at Village Malik Mau
Chaubarra Pargana, Tehsil and District
Raebareli in Khata No. 0002, Gata
Nos/area
(in
Hectare),
198/0.550,
199/0.592,
240/0.048,
241/0.6260,
245/0.2810,
247/0.670,
251/0.600,
280sha/0.1170,
1094/0.6580
and
1104/1.5050 has been auctioned and
purchased by the State in lieu of the
outstanding amount due to respondent no. 5
i.e. Bank of Baroda.

3. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for petitioner that the petitioner had
taken an agricultural loan of Rs.33,000/- on
27.06.1975 from the Bank of Baroda,
Branch Dedaur, District Raebareli. It is
stated that against the said loan, the
petitioners had deposit the loan amount of
Rs.52,000/- till 1984 and also an amount of
Rs. 25,000/- on 23.03.2002 as demanded
by the respondent-Bank. It has been stated
that on 14.05.2010 some government
officials went to the petitioner's land and
started measuring the same and it is then
the petitioner came to know that the land of
the petitioner has been sold by the State
Government in an auction and even
subsequently, he was able to obtain the
records pertaining to the said auction. The
petitioner stated that the action was held by
the State Government on 16.06.1991 where
no bids were made and no one had
participated in the said auction. It seems
that the State had purchased the land for
Rs.1/- and name of the State Government
2 All. Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1057
had also mutated in the revenue record on
05.06.1992. It has been stated that a
recovery notice was sent by the respondentBank to the Collector for recovery of
outstanding amount of Rs.17,929/- on
28.04.1985. Another recovery notice under
Form-74 was issued on 09.08.1990 for an
amount of Rs.69,929/-. As the petitioner
did not pay the outstanding amount of loan,
recovery proceedings were initiated and
land of the petitioner was auctioned in
Rs.1/-.

4. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya
Bank passed in Civil Appeal No.6843 of
2023 as well as Narandas Karsondas Vs.
S.A. Kamtam, 1976 CJ (SC) 287 to
canvass his plea that his right to redemption
of the mortgaged property existed even
subsequent to confirmation of the auction
and consequently he may be permitted to
deposit the outstanding amount of loan and
the impugned orders may be set aside
directing the respondents to hand over the
property back to the petitioner.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the
State, it has been stated that in 1985, the
petitioner was served with an auction notice
and again in 1990, they were served with an
auction notice but the petitioner did not repay
the said amount and subsequently the loan
was put for auction but the auction
proceedings could not take place and
consequently, it is stated that the land vested
in the State Government and mutation in this
respect was also undertaken by the order
dated 09.09.1992. It has further been stated in
the counter affidavit that on failure in auction,
the land was vested in the State Government.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the question
which falls for consideration is as to whether
where either no one has participated in the
said auction or auction has not been
conducted by the State, can the land, which is
mortgaged with the Bank as security towards
the loan taken by the farmers, vest in the
State Government.

6. Before dealing with rival contentions
of parties, it would be useful to refer some
decisions of the Apex Court, having material
bearing on the question in controversy
involved in the case, hereinafter.

7. In the case of Union Bank of India
Vs. Official Liquidator, 2000 (5) SCC 274,
the Apex Court has observed as under:-

"In auction-sale of the property of
the company which is ordered to be wound
up, the Company Court acts as a custodian
for the interest of the Company and its
creditors. It is the duty of the Company Court
to satisfy itself as to reasonableness of price
by disclosing valuation report to secured
creditors of the company and other interested
persons. It was further held that the Court
should exercise judicial discretion to ensure
that sale of property should fetch adequate
price. For deciding what would be reasonable
price, valuation report of an expert is
essential. The Company Judge himself must
apply his mind to the valuation report. The
Court observed that the High Court did not
interfere with the auction-sale on the ground
of sympathy for the workers which was not
proper. The auction-sale was, therefore, set
aside by this Court and the Official
Liquidator was directed to resell the
property after obtaining fresh valuation
report and after furnishing copy of such
report to secured creditors."

8. In Divya Manufacturing Company
(P) Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India
and others, AIR 2000 SC 2346, the Apex
1058 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court held that in appropriate cases, even
the confirmed sale can be set aside.

9. In Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar
and others, (2004) 7 SCC 151, the Apex
Court held that in absence of valuation
report and reserve price, the auction sale
becomes only a pretence and if there is no
proper mechanism and if the intending
purchasers are not able to know the details
of the assets or 10 intemised valuation, the
auction-sale cannot be said to be in
accordance with law. If publicity and
maximum participation is to be attained, all
bidders must know the details of the assets
and the valuation thereof.

9. The right of redemption which is
embodied in section 60 of the Transfer of
Property Act is available to the Mortga-gor
unless it has been extinguished by the Act
of parties. The combined effect of section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act and
section 17 of the Indian Registration Act is
that a contract for sale in respect of
immovable property of the value of more
than
one
hundred
rupees
without
registration cannot extinguish the equity of
redemption. In India it is only on execution
of the conveyance and registration of
transfer of the mortgagor?s interest by
registered instrument that the mortgagor?s
right of redemption will be extinguished.
The conferment of power to sell without
intervention of the Court in a Mortgage
Deed by itself will not deprive the
mortgagor of his right to redemption. The
extinction of the right of redemption has to
be subsequent to the deed conferring such
power. The right of redemption is not
extinguished at the expiry of the period. The
equity of redemption is not extinguished by
mere contract for sale. The mortgagor?s right to
redeem will survive until there has been
completion of sale by the mortagee by a
registered deed. In England a sale of property
takes place by agreement but it is not so in our
country. The power to sell shall not be
exercised unless and until notice in writing
requiring payment of the principal money has
been served on the mortgagor. Further section
69(3) of the Transfer of Property Act shows that
when a sale has been made in professed
exercise of such a power, the title of the
purchaser shall not be impeachable on the
ground that no case had arisen to authorise the
sale. Therefore, until the sale is complete by
registration the mortgagor does not lose right of
redemption.

10. From the aforesaid judgements, it
is clear that whenever a property is put up for
auction to realise the outstanding amount of
dues, one of the main considerations is to get
the maximum value out of the said property.
For the said purpose, it is an essential condition
that there should be proper valuation of the
property, for which purpose provision has been
made even in the Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act. Even in a situation where
no person appears to participate in the auction
and no bidders participate in the auction,
Collector has been given the discretion to bid
up to the amount of such arrears. Rule 285B of
the said Act is quoted here for ready reference:-

 "285B. No officer having any duty to
perform in connection with any such sale, and
no person employed by, on subordinate to, such
officer shall, either directly or indirectly, bid for,
acquire or attempt to acquire the property sold
or any interest therein :

Provided that where at any
auction under Section 248 no bid is offered
up to the amount of the arrear, for which
the sale has been ordered, the Collector
may bid upto the amount of such arrear."

11. In the facts of the present case,
according to the State Government no one
2 All. Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P.
1059
participated in the said auction and
consequently the property was purchased
by the State for Re 1/-. Even in a situation
where no person has appeared to bid, it was
open for the State to purchase the said
property, but the reserve price had to be
offered and paid. There is no law which
permits the State to purchase the mortgaged
property Re 1/-, which would be below the
reserve price for 1.7 hectares of land
anywhere. The said action of the State is
clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to
the statutory provisions of Rule 285B of the
Act of 1950.

12. The State is under a mandate to
act reasonably and fairly in all spheres of
activity. Even the rules providing for sale
of immovable property provide for a
detailed mechanism where proper notices
have to be issued, the property has to be
valued before fixing the reserve price, and
even the auction has to be fair and
transparent. The action of the State in
purchasing the property at an auction
conducted by themselves for a price of Re.
1/- is nothing but confiscation of the
property. Such a right cannot be vested in a
democratic State, to confiscate the property
of the citizen under the garb of a realisation
of outstanding amount of loan for a paltry
sum of Re.1/-. According to Rule 285B
even if no one had participated in the
auction, the minimum reserve price should
have been paid for purchase of the said
property. At this stage, we cannot lose sight
of the Constitutional provisions contained
in Article 300A.

13. According to Article 300 A of
the Constitution of India 'no person can be
deprived of his / her property save by
authority of law' and the State cannot
dispossess a citizen of his / her property
except in accordance with the procedure
provided for in the Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. In the
present case, deprivation of the property of
the petitioner in purported exercise of the
powers to sell mortgaged property to
recovery amount of loan by the State
Government and to purchase it at Re.1/- is
nothing except confiscation of the property.
The said action cannot be sustained on the
anvil of the provisions contained in
U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, especially Rule 285
B as quoted hereinabove and Article 300 A
of the Constitution. It is surprising that
when no person appeared during the
auction why was not another date fixed
after due publicity to ensure maximum
participation at the auction but still the
State proceeded with the said auction and
settled in their own favour at a paltry sum
of Re.1/-. On the touchstone In the
Constitutional Scheme as well as under the
statutory provisions and rules of U.P.Z.A.
and L.R. Act, the said exercise is clearly
arbitrary and illegal and deserves to be
quashed and is hereby quashed.

14. It has been submitted that the
petitioner is still in possession of the
agricultural
land
accordingly,
the
respondents are restrained from interfering
in the possession of the petitioner except by
following due process of law. In case the
outstanding amount of loan is still due, the
petitioner is given liberty to approach the
respondent-Bank and settle the same while
considering
the
application
of
the
petitioner,
the
respondent-Bank
may
exercise its discretionary power and fix
easy installments in case the petitioner is
ready and willing to pay the entire loan. In
case, the petitioner does not pay the loan, it
shall be open for the respondent-Bank to
take recourse to auction of the mortgaged
property in accordance with law for proper
and adequate consideration.
1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. Further, the petitioner is given
liberty to move an appropriate application
for mutation before the competent authority
for mutating the name of the petitioner in
place of State. On petitioner's moving said
application, necessary orders in terms of
the directions issued by this Court shall be
passed by the competent authority with
expedition in accordance with law.

16. Subject to above directions, the
writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ - C No. 3000014 of 2007

Chakra Manoher & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dr. L.P. Misra, Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - U.P. Imposition of Ceiling
on Land Holdings Act, 1960 - Sections 5,
10(2), 11(2) & 14 - Ceiling Proceedings -
Non-Issuance of Notice - Right to Possession -
Article 226

The
petitioners
challenged
orders
dated
08.03.1990, 26.03.1996, and 10.11.2006 passed
by the Prescribed Authority and Additional
Commissioner in ceiling proceedings under the
U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act,
1960, concerning 19.152 acres in Village
Gurchahi, Shrawasti. The land, originally held by
Sampata Devi, devolved to Bindra Devi, from
whom the petitioners purchased it via a
registered sale deed dated 01.09.1970. No
notice under Section 10(2) was issued to the
petitioners, despite their recorded possession
and inclusion in L.H. Form-3, rendering the
proceedings voi The petitioners' application
under Section 11(2) and subsequent appeal
were rejecte Held: Relying on Shantanu
Kumar Vs St. of U.P. (1979 ALL L.J. 1174), the
court held that non-issuance of notice to the
petitioners, whose names appeared in revenue
records and L.H. Form-3, violated Section
10(2), making the proceedings jurisdictionally
defective. Explanation II of Section 5 presumes
possession by the original holder unless proven
otherwise, and the petitioners' sale deed (pre24.01.1971) excluded the land from ceiling
proceedings. The Prescribed Authority's failure
to consider possession and the sale deed,
coupled
with
the
appellate
authority's
affirmation, warranted quashing the orders. The
matter was remitted to the Prescribed Authority
for fresh adjudication within three months, with
the petitioners given four weeks to submit
evidence, including the original sale dee

The writ petition was allowed

Case Law Cited:

1. Shantanu Kumar Vs St. of U.P., 1979 ALL L.J.
1174

2. Dilbagh Singh Vs St. of U.P., 1978 AWC 393

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

1. Heard Ms. Anapoorna Agnihotri,
Advocate holding brief of Dr. Lalta Prasad
Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners as
well as learned Standing Counsel for the
respondents.

2. By means of present writ petition
the petitioners have challenged the order
dated 26.03.1996, passed by the Prescribed
Authority, Bahraich in Case No. 45/106,
the order dated 10.11.2006, passed by the
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Devi
Patan Division, Gonda in Case No. 238/2
and the order dated 08.03.1990, passed by