# M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd v. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 479
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1001013 of 1996
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-zenith-electrical-pvt-ltd-v-board-of-revenue-u-p-lucknow-ors-50679
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 283A, Rule 285-A, Rule 285-I & Rule
285-J , The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section5 - delay condonation - Proceedings
before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I
of the Rules, 1952 is judicial proceeding -
application under Section 5 of the Act,
1963 is maintainable for condoning the
delay in filing the objection - if any
objection under Section-285-I of the
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rules,
1952
is
filed
before
the
Commissioner
then
application
under
Section-5 of the Act, 1963 is very well
applicable
and
Commissioner has
an
authority to condone the delay in filing an
objection - Commissioner
empowered
to

consider
objection
of
petitioner
regarding violation of provision of Rules,
1952
in
conducting

auction
proceeding/sale
-
reason
must
be
recorded by the judicial or quasi-judicial
authority while passing an order. (Para -
11,14,15,16)

Petitioner challenges auction proceeding of
company's
assets
-
including
sale
confirmation
order
of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate & order of Commissioner - delay
condonation application - maintainability -
power of commissioner to condone delay in
filing objection after 30 days - petitioner's
objection against auction sale was rejected
under Rule 285-I of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
revision against
order
of Commissioner
rejected by Board of Revenue - hence
petition. (Para -3,10)

HELD:-No finding recorded by Board of
Revenue in dismissing the revision . Order
passed by Commissioner as well as Board of
Revenue
quashed.
Direction
issued
to
Commissioner to decide application of petitioner
for condonation of delay in filing objection.
Maintain status quo. (Para - 16,17,18)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Prithvipat Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.5212 of 1987

## Text

8 All. M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors.
479
Act, 2007 cannot direct eviction simplicitor
from the property at the instance of senior
citizens, though the Tribunal can direct the
children and relatives to make available a
residence to such senior citizens in
pursuance of an application, filed under the
abovesaid chapter. It further emerges that
the District Magistrate as an appellate
authority under the Act, 2007, can ensure
that no one should make any hindrance to a
senior citizen to enjoy the property as per
his 'need' and the right to eviction is the
last step, where such authority finds that
the need of a senior citizen is not being
fulfilled. The case in hands is that the
present petitioner is living in one room with
his wife and he is not making any
hindrance in the peaceful living of the
parents, in other part of the house and
therefore, so far as the objective of the Act,
2007 is concerned, is no way hampered by
the petitioner.

30. Further the procedure of eviction
is not at par to the procedure as prescribed
in the Civil Procedure Code, where the
rights and titles are determined, as the
provisions of Act,2007 is for ensuring the
needs of the senior citizens and that is to be
handled, carefully, so that the structure of
the family may not be abrupted.

31. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, the order
passed by the appellate authority, so far as
the eviction of the present petitioner is
concerned, is not sustainable, in the eyes of
law.

32. Consequently, the impugned order
dated 22-11-2019 passed in Appeal No.
1333 of 2019, is hereby quashed.

33. Liberty is given to opposite party
no. 5, (mother of the petitioner), to move an
appropriate application, if any sort of
hindrance is been made, in furtherance to
the need of her residence.

34. The petitioner is also directed, not
to make any inconvenience in the needful
living of the opposite party no. 5, in the
house in question.

35. With the aforesaid observations,
the instant petition is hereby disposed of.

36. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 479
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 1001013 of 1996

M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.K. Kalia, Ajay Pratap Singh Vatsa, Shobhit
Mohan Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.M.K. Chaudhary

(A) Land Law - Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
Rule 283A, Rule 285-A, Rule 285-I & Rule
285-J , The Limitation Act, 1963 - Section5 - delay condonation - Proceedings
before the Commissioner under Rule 285-I
of the Rules, 1952 is judicial proceeding -
application under Section 5 of the Act,
1963 is maintainable for condoning the
delay in filing the objection - if any
objection under Section-285-I of the
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rules,
1952
is
filed
before
the
Commissioner
then
application
under
Section-5 of the Act, 1963 is very well
applicable
and
Commissioner has
an
authority to condone the delay in filing an
objection - Commissioner
empowered
to

consider
objection
of
petitioner
regarding violation of provision of Rules,
1952
in
conducting

auction
proceeding/sale
-
reason
must
be
recorded by the judicial or quasi-judicial
authority while passing an order. (Para -
11,14,15,16)

Petitioner challenges auction proceeding of
company's
assets
-
including
sale
confirmation
order
of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate & order of Commissioner - delay
condonation application - maintainability -
power of commissioner to condone delay in
filing objection after 30 days - petitioner's
objection against auction sale was rejected
under Rule 285-I of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 -
revision against
order
of Commissioner
rejected by Board of Revenue - hence
petition. (Para -3,10)

HELD:-No finding recorded by Board of
Revenue in dismissing the revision . Order
passed by Commissioner as well as Board of
Revenue
quashed.
Direction
issued
to
Commissioner to decide application of petitioner
for condonation of delay in filing objection.
Maintain status quo. (Para - 16,17,18)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

Prithvipat Vs St. of U.P. & ors. , Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.5212 of 1987

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Vatsa, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Shri R. K. Maurya, learned Standing
Counsel representing the State-Opposite
parties.

2. No one appears on behalf of
opposite parties no.6 to 11.

3. By means of the present petition,
the petitioner has challenged the auction
proceeding of the assets of the company
held on 13.06.1992 as well as sale
confirmation order dated 17.07.1992 of Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Ghaziabad and also
the
order
of
Commissioner,
Meerut
Division, Meerut dated 23.03.1993 by
which an objection against the auction sale
dated 13.06.1992 filed under Rule 285-I of
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Rules, 1952') was
rejected and also the order of Board of
Revenue, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow dated
06.11.1995 by which the revision of the
petitioner
against
the
order
of
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
was rejected.

4. Factual matrix of the case is as
follows:-

5. The petitioner-company is a
registered
company
engaged
in
the
production of transformer, bulb and other
electrical goods and because of labour
unrest in the factory, production in the
company was put in halt and company
suffered huge loss. Therefore the company
could not clear outstanding towards sales
tax, electricity dues and dues of Small
Scale Industries Corporation.

6. On failing to clear the outstanding
of electricity dues as well as Small Scale
Industry Corporation, a recovery certificate
was issued by the Collector, Ghaziabad of
the amount of Rs.1,39,663.58/- to recover
the electricity dues as well as the dues of
Small
Scale
Industry.
Thereafter
in
pursuance of the recovery citation issued
8 All. M/s Zenith Electrical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Board of Revenue U.P., Lucknow & Ors.
481
by the Tehsildar, Ghaziabad property of the
petitioner-company
was
attached
and
subsequently same was auctioned on
13.06.1992
which
was
subsequently
confirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate
on
17.07.1992
along
with
delay
condonation
application.
Against
the
aforesaid
auction
proceeding,
the
petitioner-company has filed an objection
dated 19.08.1992 under Rule 285-I of the
Rules, 1952 to set aside the sale on the
ground
of
material
irregularity
and
violation of statutory provisions but the
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut
rejected the objection of the petitioner by
the order dated 23.03.1993 on the ground
that objection dated 19.08.1992 filed by the
petitioner is time barred because as per rule
285-I of the Rule 1952 it could be filed
within 30 days from the date of sale.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order
dated 23.03.1993 of the Commissioner,
Meerut Division, Meerut, the petitioner
preferred Revision No.15-92-93, Zenith
Electricals Private Limited vs. State of U.P
and others before the Board of Revenue,
U.P. Lucknow.

8. Contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is that the objection of the
petitioner was rejected only on the ground
that objection of the petitioner is time
barred or the same was filed after 30 days
of sale and delay condonation application
of the petitioner was not considered. It is
further submitted that if there is no bar for
condoning the delay then the Limitation
Act applies and delay can be condoned if
the application is filed along with affidavit
giving sufficient explanation of filing the
delay.

9. It is further submitted by the
counsel for the petitioner that the order of
the Board of Revenue is absolutely cryptic
in nature and no reasoning was given.
Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the entire
auction proceeding deserves to be set aside
being conducted in violation of Rule 283A,
Rule 285-A and Rule 285-J of the Rules,
1952.

10. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel submits that there is no provision
for condoning the delay in Rule 285-I of
the Rules, 1952, therefore Limitation Act
does not apply. It was further contended by
the learned Standing Counsel that auction
proceedings was conducted as per the
procedure prescribed in the Rules, 1952
therefore the present petition deserves to be
dismissed.

11. After hearing the parties and on
perusal of record, two questions arises for
consideration of this Court :

(I) Whether delay condonation
application
under
Section-5
of
the
Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act, 1963') is maintainable in the
proceeding under Rule 285-I of the Rules,
1952
before
the
Commissioner
and
Commissioner has power to condone the
delay in filing the objection which were
filed beyond the period of thirty days ?

(II)
Whether
the
auction
proceedings in question has been conducted
in violation of Rules 285-II and 285-H of
the Rules, 1952 ?

12. The first question mentioned
above came into consideration before the
Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc.
Writ
Petition
No.5212
of
1987
(Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.).
That Division Bench in decision dated
04.09.1997 clearly observed in paragraph
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no.3
that
proceedings
before
the
Commissioner under Rule 285-I of the
Rules, 1952 is judicial proceeding and
application under Section 5 of the Act,
1963 is maintainable for condoning the
delay in filing the objection. Paragraph
no.3 of the Prithvipat Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors. (supra) is being reproduced as under :

"3. As the judgment of Division
Bench in Indu Engineering (supra) relied
on by the Commissioner for rejecting the
application
under
Section
5
of
the
Limitation Act and objection of the
petitioner by the impugned order dated
19.2.1987 has been reversed by the Full
Bench, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. The proceedings initiated on an
objection filed under Rule 285-I of U. P. Z.
A. and L. R. Rules have been held to be
Judicial proceeding. Hence we hold that
Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall be
applicable to the proceedings under Rule
285-I and the application of the petitioners
filed for condonation of delay ought to have
been decided on merits which has not been
done by the Commissioner."

13. Rule 285-I of the Rules, 1952 itself
mentioned that within thirty days from the
date of sale, an application/objection may be
made to Commissioner to set-aside the sale
on the ground mentioned in the Rules, 1952.
But this Rule itself does not prohibit the
Commissioner to condone the delay if
aforesaid application/objection against the
sale is filed beyond thirty days, therefore, in
the provision itself, there is no prohibition for
condoning the delay in filing objection
beyond thirty days. Rule 285-I of the Rules,
1952 is being reproduced as under :

"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."

14. Considering the above legal
position, this Court is of the view that if
any objection under Section-285-I of the
Rules,
1952
is
filed
before
the
Commissioner then application under
Section-5 of the Act, 1963 is very well
applicable and Commissioner has an
authority to condone the delay in filing
an objection.

15. So far as second question is
concerned regarding violation of provision
of Rules, 1952 in conducting the impugned
auction proceeding/sale, same can very
well be dealt with by the Commissioner
while considering the objection of the
petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the
view that no finding is required at this
stage.

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
number of judgements already observed
that reason must be recorded by the judicial
or quasi-judicial authority while passing an
order. This Court also expressed its strong
displeasure about the order passed by
Board of Revenue in revision because no
finding was recorded while dismissing the
revision it was dismissed only on the
ground that it has no force therefore order
of Board of Revenue passed in revision
also deserves to be set-aside.

17. In view of the above legal
position, this Court is of the view that order
dated 23.03.1993 passed by Commissioner,
8 All. Gurmeet Singh Vs. State of U.P.
483
Meerut Division, Meerut as well as order
dated 06.11.1995 passed by the Board of
Revenue, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow
deserves to be quashed and hence it is
quashed and a direction is issued to
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to
decide the application of petitioner for
condonation of delay in filing objection
dated 19.08.1992 before him in light of
observations made above.

18. It is further directed that till
disposal of objection of the petitioner under
Section 285-I of the Rules, 1952, status quo
should
be
maintained
regarding
the
property of petitioner which was subject
matter of impugned auction proceedings.

19. With the aforesaid observations,
the present petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 483
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 3000008 of 1995
And
Writ C No. 3000066 of 1995

Gurmeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. R.K. Srivastava, Shyam Mohan Pradhan

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

(A) Land Law - The U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 -
Section 10(2) - Notice to tenure holders
failing
to
submit
a
statement
or
submitting an incomplete or incorrect
statement - no inquiry regarding the
validity of the sale-deed under section
5(6) of the Act could be made with
regard to the genuineness of the saledeed executed prior to 24.1.1971.(Para -
19)

Notice under Section 10(2) of Act - issued to
original tenure holder - proposed to declare
83.57 Acres of land as 'Surplus' - controversy
- whether notice under Section 10(2) of the
Act of 1960 can be issued again regarding the
same holding - original tenure holder had
objections to the sale-deeds - dismissed by
Prescribed Authority - sold major portion of
land by executing registered sale-deeds - all
sale-deeds executed prior to cut-of-date, i.e.
24.01.1971 - prescribed in the Act of
1960.(Para - 4 ,5, 17)

HELD:-
Court
finds
it
impermissible
for
Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority to
dispute sale-deeds in the case. Due to principle
of res-judicata, the same lands were subjected
to the Act of 1960 in 1975 and excluded from
the original tenure holder's holdings, and
therefore cannot be subjected to the Act of
1960 again. Contradicts Prescribed Authority's
different view. Orders passed by Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate
Authority
set
aside.(Para -22,23)

Petitions allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Devendra Nath Singh (Dead), through legal
heirs & ors. Vs Civil Judge & anr., AIR 1999 SC
2264

2. Pyare & ors. Vs Dy. Director of Consolidation,
Camp at Faizabad & ors., Writ Petition No. 423
of 1977

3. Ramadhar Singh Vs Prescribed Authority &
ors., 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 702

4. Indrapal Singh & ors. Vs Prescribed Authority,
Meerut & anr., 2007(103) RD 102

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