# Rajendra Pal Singh v. The Commissioner and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 619
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-04-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21109 of 1986
- **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-pal-singh-v-the-commissioner-and-others-42236
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

S.C.
Sri A. Rathore
Sri D.R. Sharma
Sri S.A. Khan

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Rules-285-A-285-D
auction
sale-conducted
by
Naib
Tehsildarconfirmed by Dy. Collector-held-in no
manner Asst. Collector includes Naib
Tehsildar-whether
remaining
75%
amount deposited within 15 days-due to
arbitrary illegal action of authorities
petitioner deprived from his property for
last 25 years-entitled for exepmtory cost
of Rs. 50000.

Held: Para 31 and 33

It shows that for the purpose of auction,
Naib Tahsildar was authorised. By no
stretch of imagination it can be said that
this action and authorization of Naib
Tahsildar satisfy the requirement of Rule
285-A of 1952 Rules which contemplates
auction
either
by
Collector
or
an
Assistant Collector authorised in this
behalf by him. In no manner Assistant
Collector would include a Naib Tehsildar.
Therefore the auction conducted on 27th
January, 1997 was evidently not in
conformity with Rule 285-A of 1952
Rules.

In view of the above, it is, thus, clear
that though there is no non-compliance
of Rule 285-D and 285-E, yet, it cannot
be said that the auction had been
conducted by the competent authority
and, therefore, there is a clear violation
of rule 285-A.
Case law discussed:
1960 ALJ 549; 1965 RD 379; 2009 (107) RD
22; 2004 (56) ALR 115 (SC)

## Text

2 All] Rajendra Pal Singh V. The Commissioner and others
619
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.04.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21109 of 1986

Rajendra Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anshu Chaudhary
Sri Anupam Kulshrestha
Sri G.N. Verma
Sri Prakash Chandra
Sri Rakesh Chandra
Sri Samar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.
Sri A. Rathore
Sri D.R. Sharma
Sri S.A. Khan

U.P.
Zamindari
Abolition
and
Land
Reforms
Rules-285-A-285-D
auction
sale-conducted
by
Naib
Tehsildarconfirmed by Dy. Collector-held-in no
manner Asst. Collector includes Naib
Tehsildar-whether
remaining
75%
amount deposited within 15 days-due to
arbitrary illegal action of authorities
petitioner deprived from his property for
last 25 years-entitled for exepmtory cost
of Rs. 50000.

Held: Para 31 and 33

It shows that for the purpose of auction,
Naib Tahsildar was authorised. By no
stretch of imagination it can be said that
this action and authorization of Naib
Tahsildar satisfy the requirement of Rule
285-A of 1952 Rules which contemplates
auction
either
by
Collector
or
an
Assistant Collector authorised in this
behalf by him. In no manner Assistant
Collector would include a Naib Tehsildar.
Therefore the auction conducted on 27th
January, 1997 was evidently not in
conformity with Rule 285-A of 1952
Rules.

In view of the above, it is, thus, clear
that though there is no non-compliance
of Rule 285-D and 285-E, yet, it cannot
be said that the auction had been
conducted by the competent authority
and, therefore, there is a clear violation
of rule 285-A.
Case law discussed:
1960 ALJ 549; 1965 RD 379; 2009 (107) RD
22; 2004 (56) ALR 115 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Mr Anshu Chodhary for
the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel,
representing respondent nos. 1 and 2, and
Mr Diwakar Rai Sharma, representing
respondent no. 4. None appeared for
respondent no. 3, though the case has
been taken up in the revised list.

2. Writ petition is directed against
the order impugned dated 5.11.1986
(Annexure - B) passed by respondent no.
2,
SDM/Tehsildar,
Sikandara
Rau,
Aligarh, and the order dated 5.11.1986
passed
by
respondent
no.
1,
the
Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra.

3. The respondent no. 2 has
auctioned the attached property of the
petitioner, at plot nos. 38006 and 380-kha
and 450, total area 25- 12-15. on
13.3.1986, which has been confirmed by
respondent no. 2 on 9.6.1986. The
petitioner filed an appeal/application
before the Commissioner for setting aside
the auction which has been rejected by the
impugned order dated 5.11.1986 passed
by respondent no. 1.
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has challenged the impugned auction on
the ground that the same was in violation
of Rule 285-A, 285-D, 285-E and 285-J
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Rules, read with section 284 of
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act.

5. The respondents have filed
counter affidavit.

6. In the counter affidavit filed by
respondent no. 4, who is auctionpurchaser, it is stated that after munadi by
beat and drums a date of auction was
fixed on 13.3.1986. Land in dispute of the
petitioner was auctioned in presence of
Jwala Singh, gram pradhan and other
villagers. Respondent no. 4 was the
highest bidder for Rs. 16,000/-, out of
which he deposited Rs. 4,000/- at the spot.
A report was submitted by Naib Tehsildar
on
9.6.1986,
recommending
for
confirmation to SDO, Sikandara Rao,
Aligarh. Since the petitioner neither
deposited the amount sought to be
recovered nor filed any objection against
the aforesaid auction; though a notice was
issued to the petitioner and served
personally by the official respondents. It
is stated that the notice was served on
30.4.1986. The petitioner instead filed an
appeal before the Commissioner on
8.7.1986, which was barred by limitation
and has rightly been rejected by the
Commissioner. The SDO, Sikandra Rao,
had already issued a sale certificate in
favour of respondent no. 4 on 25th June,
1986.

7. The petitioner has filed a
rejoinder affidavit, in reply to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.
4, wherein the case in the writ petition has
been reiterated. However, he has further
said in paragraph 4 of the rejoinder
affidavit that even warrant of attachment
was issued by a revenue clerk, and not by
the Collector, as is evident from annexure
-1 to the writ petition. Therefore, even the
attachment or sale proclamation was
illegal.

8. There is one more fact in order to
complete the narration of facts, that the
balance amount of the auction-money was
deposited by respondent no. 4 on
31.3.1986.

9. A short question up for
consideration is whether the auction
proceedings in respect to the land in
question have been held in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in the
statute or not.

10. Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as '1950 Act') lays
down
various
processes
following
whereto
recovery
of
an
amount,
recoverable as arrears of land revenue,
can be made. Sub section 1(d), (e) and (f)
of Section 279 provides that the amount
can be recovered:

(d) by attachment of the holding in
respect of which the arrear is due;

(e) by lease or sale of the holding in
respect of which the arrear is due;

(f) by attachment and sale of other
immovable property of the defaulter.

11. The procedure for attachment,
lease and sale of holding, against which
an arrears is due and other property of the
defaulter is provided in Sections 284 and
2 All] Rajendra Pal Singh V. The Commissioner and others
621
286 of 1950 Act read with U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
(hereinafter referred to as "1952 Rules")
and Rules 281 to 286 deals therewith.

12. Rule 281(2) of 1952 Rules
provides that process for sale of holding
under Section 284 of 1950 Act and of
other immovable property under Section
286 of 1950 Act shall be issued by
Collector. In respect to the procedure of
sale, Rules 285-A, 285-D, 285-E, 285-G,
285-H and 285-I provides as under:

"285-A. 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. No such sale shall take place
on a Sunday or other gazetted holiday or
until after the expiration of at least thirty
days from the date on which the
proclamation under Rule 282 was issued.

285-D. The person declared to be the
purchaser shall be required to deposit
immediately twenty-five per cent of the
amount of this bid, and in default of such
deposit the land shall forthwith be again
put up and sold and such person shall be
liable for the expenses attending the first
sale and any deficiency of price which
may occur on the re-sale which may be
recovered from him by the Collector as if
same were an arrear of land revenue.

285-E. The full amount of purchase
money shall be paid by the purchaser on
or before the fifteenth day from the date
of the sale at the district treasury or any
sub-treasury and in case of default the
deposit, after the expenses of sale have
been
defrayed
therefrom,
shall
be
forfeited to Government and the property
shall be re-sold and the defaulting
purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the
property or to any part of the sum for
which it may be subsequently sold.

285-G. No sale after postponement
under Rule 285-A, 285-D or 285-E in
default of payment of the purchase money
shall be made until a fresh proclamation
has been issued as prescribed for the
original sale.

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 which the 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 costs of the sale.

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 entitled to make an
application under this rule.

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
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
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) Deleted.

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

13. Referring to Rule 285(A),
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
contended that auction could have been
made either by the Collector in person or
by an Assistant Collector specially
appointed by him in this behalf. He
pointed out that in the present case, it is
evident from the counter affidavit that
proclamation of sale was issued by
Deputy Collector, Aonla and Tehsildar,
Aonla and auction was made by Naib
Tahsildar, which is not consistent with the
procedure prescribed in the statute and
therefore, the entire proceedings are
illegal.

14. It would be appropriate to
consider the aforesaid submission in the
light of the definition of "Collector" in
1950 Act. The statute initially enacted
contain the definition of Collector under
Section 3(4) of 1950 Act as under:

"Collector" 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.

15. This definition of Collector
underwent an amendment in 1974 and
after the amendment it reads as under:

"Collector"
means
an
officer
appointed as Collector under the
provisions of 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 Collector."
(Words in bold in paras 16 & 17 denotes
the difference)

16. Under Section 3(27) it is
provided that the words and expressions,
under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, revenue
"mahal", Collector, Assistant Collector,
Assistant Collector-in-charge of subdivision, Commissioner, Board, Tahsildar
and minor, not defined in Act, 1950 and
used in the United Provinces Land
Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred
to as "1901 Act") shall have the meaning
assigned to them in that Act.

17. The Collector is appointed under
Section 14 of 1901 Act. It reads as under:

"The State Government shall appoint
in each district an officer who shall be
Collector of the district and who shall
throughout his district, exercise all the
powers and discharge his duties by this
Act or any other law for the time being in
force. The term includes a Deputy
Commissioner
as
well
as
the
Superintendent of Dehra Dun"

18. Considering the old definition of
Collector, this Court in Paras Nath Singh
Vs. State of U.P., 1960 ALJ 549 held
that under Section 223 of 1901 Act,
powers of a Collector can be conferred on
an Assistant Collector of First Class. The
powers of a Collector cannot be conferred
on a 'Tahsildar' since he as such is not an
Assistant Collector of First Class.
2 All] Rajendra Pal Singh V. The Commissioner and others
623

19. This decision of Paras Nath
Singh (supra) has been affirmed in intra
court appeal by the Division Bench in
State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Paraspati
Gram Samaj, 1965 RD 379.

20. Recently a Division Bench of
this Court in M/s R.D.Cements Industries
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector/D.M., Lucknow,
2010(111) RD 211 has said:

"Accordingly
giving
harmonious
construction to provisions contained in
sub-section (4) of Section 3 read with
Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
the auction and sale proceeding may be
conducted either by the Collector himself
or the Assistant Collector of First Class
duly appointed by the Collector and no
other authority."

"The Collector or Assistant Collector
cannot delegate power to Naib Tahsildar
to hold the auction and sale proceeding
under Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Rules."

21. Learned standing counsel,
however, has relied on a notification
dated 7th January, 1964 in his written
argument and in para 8 thereof says that
by notification No.3937/1-A-1165(1)/54
dated 7th January, 1964 all Tahsildars
were appointed as Assistant Collector,
First Class. It further says that by another
notification No.3937(1)/JA-1166(1)/54 all
Assistant Collector First Class appointed
under the aforesaid notification have been
empowered to discharge all functions of
Collector under Section 122-B of Act
1950.

22. Though copies of the aforesaid
notifications have not been placed on
record but assuming what is stated therein
correct, firstly, it cannot be said that the
said
notification
authorises
a
Naib
Tahsildar to conduct auction sale or even
an Assistant Collector First Class who is
not
especially
empowered
by
the
Collector to do so can hold auction under
Rule 285-A of 1952 Rules. It is evident
that unless authorised by Collector, an
Assistant Collector also cannot hold
auction. It is different thing, if in the
matter of appointment of Collector under
1901 Act, the State Government includes
an Assistant Collector First Class also but
that is not sufficient to authorise him to
further authorise anyone else to hold
auction.
Moreover,
the
aforesaid
notification at the best are in reference to
Section 122-B and therefore would not
help the respondents in the matter of
auction governed by Section 284 read
with Rule 285A of the Rules.

23. Justice M.C.Desai in Paras Nath
Singh (supra) while considering Section
223 of 1901 Act said that Tahsildar is a
Revenue Officer appointed under Act
1901, Section 17. The Assistant Collector
First Class or Second Class is a different
officer
appointed
by
the
State
Government under the said Act. A
Tehsildar as such is not an Assistant
Collector either of Ist Class or 2nd Class.
Section
224
of
Act
1901
though
empowers the State Government to confer
upon any Tehsildar all or any powers of
the Assistant Collector Second Class but
not with those of Assistant Collector First
Class. The Collector is another Revenue
Officer appointed by the Government
under 1901 Act. Section 223 empowers
the State Government to confer upon any
Assistant Collector of First Class all or
any of the powers of the Collector. In
exercise
of
this
powers
the
State
Government
conferred
power
of
a
624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Collector upon all Assistant Collector
First Class. When State Government in its
wisdom conferred powers of Assistant
Collector upon all Assistant Collector of
First Class, it would not mean that a
Tahsildar can claim to possess power of a
Collector when authorises to discharge
functions of Assistant Collector of Ist
Class. All the officers namely Assistant
Collector First Class, Second Class,
Tahsildar are different officers in their
own capacity. When Tahsildar invested
with a power of Assistant Collector, he
still remain a Tahsildar and does not
become an Assistant Collector. Same is
the position when an Assistant Collector
First Class is conferred power of a
Collector, he himself would not be a
Collector as such.

24. My attention is drawn to another
decision
of
Hon'ble
Single
Judge's
judgment in Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of
U.P. 1994 ACJ 608 wherein a circular of
Board of Revenue issued on 17th January,
1976 has been considered conferring
power
upon
Assistant
Collector/Sub
Divisional Officer to perform functions of
Collector. The reliance is not correct. It
shows that in respect to the auction under
Section 286 of 1950 Act, Board of
Revenue
authorised
Assistant
Collector/Sub
Divisional
Officer
to
conduct auction proceedings subject to
condition that confirmation of sale shall
be done by Collector. This Court held that
the circular of Board of Revenue would
not validate an auction conducted under
Section 284 of 1950 Act where the
procedure under Rules 285-A to 285-I
shall apply. The Court said:

"A perusal of this notification goes to
show
that
the
Sub-Divisional
Officer/Assistant Collector has only been
authorised by this notification to conduct
the auction proceedings under Section
286 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act subject to the condition that
confirmation of sale shall be done by the
collector. The power of the Collector,
when he acts under Section 284 of the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act has not been conferred upon the
Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional
Officer by this notification. As seen in the
earlier part of this judgment the sale in the
present case has taken place under the
provisions of Section 284 of the Act and
not under Section 286. Therefore this
notification dated 17.1.1976 will not
apply to the facts of the present case.
Moreover, there is another ground on the
basis of which it cannot be said that the
Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional
Officer has been invested with the power
to confirm the sale. The last sentence of
the notification dated 17-1-76 clearly goes
to show that the power of conducting sale
proceedings under Section 286 of the Act
has been conferred upon the Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer with the
condition that confirmation of sale shall
be done by the Collector. It means that
only a power to auction the property or
conduct the sale has been given to the
Assistant
Collector/Sub-Divisional
Officer and not a power to confirm the
sale which has been given to the Collector
under the provisions of Rule 285-I of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms rules. Therefore this notification
does not, in any way, confer powers on
the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional
Officer, holding the charge of a subdivision, to confirm the sale. Power to
confirm the sale still vests with the
Collector. It is the settled view that a
person who has purchased the property in
auction sale has a right to approach the
2 All] Rajendra Pal Singh V. The Commissioner and others
625
Court but a person who has not derived
any title in the auction sale cannot come
to the Court for enforcing his rights.
Unless a right is conferred on the person
that right cannot be got enforced by him
by means of writ petition or by suit. The
basis on the title on which the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition is not
there. Therefore the petitioner cannot
complain that the Collector had no power
to pass orders for re-auction of the
property in dispute."

25. Moreover, in my view, neither
the Act nor the Rules in question confer
power upon Board of Revenue to
authorise Assistant Collector in such
matter as this power is vested with the
State Government.

26. In Ram Awadh Tiwari Vs.
Sudarshan Tiwari & Ors., 2008 (105) RD
322 this question attracted this Court's
attention specifically. In exercise of
power under Section 3(4) of 1950 Act, a
notification was issued on 11th June,
1953 to the following effect:

"In exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (4) of section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 [(Act 1 of (1951)], the
Governor is pleased to empower all the
Sub-Divisional Officers in Uttar Pradesh
except those in the districts of Almora,
Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur to
discharge all the functions of a "Collector
under the said Act."

27. Another notification was issued
on 5th December, 1968 whereunder Sub
Divisional Officers were empowered to
exercise all powers of Collector under
1951 Act except the power under Section
198 of the said Act. Another notification
under Section 3(4) of 1950 Act was
issued on 17th January, 1976 to the
following effect:

"In exercise of the powers under
clause (4) of section 3 of the Uttar
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of
1951), the Governor is pleased to
empower all the Assistant Collectors of
the First Class, who are Incharge of the
sub-division, to discharge the functions of
a "Collector" under Section 286 of the
said Act in respect of any holding of a
defaulter of which he is a Bhumidhar.
Sirdar or Assami, subject to the condition
that such sales are approved by the
Collector."

28. It was contended in Ram Awadh
Tiwari (Supra) that in view of aforesaid
notifications, a Sub Divisional Officer and
Assistant Collector can exercise all the
powers of Collector including that of
auction.

29. In the aforesaid judgment, this
Court observed that Deputy Collector has
been conferred power of Collector under
1950 Act except that of Section 198 but
Assistant Collector, who is In charge of
the Division has been authorised to
exercise functions of Collector under
Section 286 but the power of confirmation
of sale still continued to be vested in
Collector.

30. Even if what has been said
above, can it be said that rule 285 has
been followed in the present case? The
answer would be in the negative.
Annexure - 1 to the writ petition shows
that Naib Tehsildar was authorised to
conduct the auction of property in dispute.
Pursuant thereto, the auction sale has been
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
held by Naib Tehsildar and he sought
confirmation of auction from the Dy.
Collector, vide his report dated 9.6.1986,
who has confirmed the same on the same
date.

31. It shows that for the purpose of
auction, Naib Tahsildar was authorised.
By no stretch of imagination it can be said
that this action and authorization of Naib
Tahsildar satisfy the requirement of Rule
285-A of 1952 Rules which contemplates
auction either by Collector or an Assistant
Collector authorised in this behalf by him.
In no manner Assistant Collector would
include a Naib Tehsildar. Therefore the
auction conducted on 27th January, 1997
was evidently not in conformity with Rule
285-A of 1952 Rules.

32. Then comes the question
whether Rule 285-D has been followed or
not. It contemplates that 25% of the
auction money shall be deposited at the
fall of hammer and the remaining 75%
within 15 days. In the circumstances it
cannot be said that Rule 285-D has not
been followed. As is evident from the
record, on the date of auction, i.e.
13.3.1986, 25 percent of the bid amount
was deposited by respondent no. 4 and the
rest of the amount was to be deposited by
28.3.1986. But, as stated by the petitioner
in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the
said amount was deposited on 31.3.1986..
This fact has been denied by respondent
no. 4 in paragraph 8 of the counter
affidavit and he has also filed two receipts
of balance of amount dated 28.3.1986
with it, being annexure nos. - 2 and 3.
Thus, it cannot be said that rule 285-D has
not been followed in the case in hand.

33. In view of the above, it is, thus,
clear that though there is no noncompliance of Rule 285-D and 285-E, yet,
it cannot be said that the auction had been
conducted by the competent authority
and, therefore, there is a clear violation of
rule 285-A.

34. Now, the crucial question at this
stage would be the effect of noncompliance of rule 285-A.

35. The Apex Court has considered
this issue in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s
Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. & Others, 2009
(107) RD 22 and in para 14 of the
judgment relying on an another decision
in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.
Vs. State of Bihar, 2004 (56) ALR 115
(SC) the Apex Court held that such an
auction would be illegal and inconsistent
with the procedure prescribed in Rule 285
and 285-A.

36. In Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (supra)
which was a judgment arising out of a
Division Bench judgment of this Court,
Apex Court clearly held that procedure
prescribed for auction in Rule 285-A and
onwards
is
mandatory
and
non
observance thereof shall vitiate entire
auction. It is worthy to mention at this
stage that after 42nd amendment of
Constitution though right to property is no
more a fundamental right but still it is a
constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 300-A which says that no person
shall be deprived of his property except in
accordance with procedure prescribed in
law. Since Constitution guarantees a
person of his right to property except
procedure prescribed in law meaning
thereby in the matter of procedure,
observance thereof has to be in words and
spirit strictly and consistent thereto,
failing which deprivation of property
would be illegal and also unconstitutional
2 All] Chandra Pal and another V. State of U.P. and others
627
being violative of Article 300-A of
Constitution of India.

37. The petitioner has made a
serious
allegations
agtainst
official
respondents but they proposed not to file
any reply. The manner in which the
auction in question has been held, clearly
shows that it is not valid and there is a
clear non-compliance of rule 285-A. The
petitioner has been deprived of his
property without following the procedure
prescribed in law. For this defect/illegality
in conducting the auction, responsibility
lie solely upon respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The petitioner has suffered and remained
deprived of the benefit of his property for
the last almost 25 years on account a
serious
illegality
committed
by
respondent no. 1 and 2. In these
circumstances, in my view, petitioner is
entitled for a suitable cost which should
be exemplary as well as compensatory in
nature.

38. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed.

39. The auction impugned in the
writ petition is hereby quashed. As a
result of quashing of auction in question,
any subsequent proceeding conferring any
right upon respondent no. 4 in respect of
the land in dispute shall stand nullified
and would not confery any right, title,
benefit or interest upon respondent no. 4.
So far as the money deposited by
respondent no. 4 is concerned, he shall be
entitled for its refund. However, for the
simple reason that he has been enjoying
the property in question during the entire
period therefore, there is no occasion to
allow any interest on the amount paid by
respondent no. 4.

40. The petitioner shall also be
entitled to the costs, quantified to Rs.
50,000/- against respondent no. 2.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25522 of 2012

Chandra Pal and another
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Santosh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri Mahesh Narain Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226application under order 9 rule 13allowed by Trail Court condoning the
delay in filing application-revision also
dismissed-Writ
Court-declined
to
interfere on technical objection that no
separate application under heading of
delay condonation filded-obviously at
the time of recalling ex-parte order Trail
Court considered the explanation-given
in affidavit as well as merit of the case -
discretion exercise in proper manner
doing substantial justice-can not be
interfered by Writ Court.

Held: Para 8

In view of the decision of the Apex Court
it
is
abundantly
clear
that
while
considering
the
delay
condonation
application the court has to see the merit
of the case also as the law of limitation is
not meant to take away the right of
Appeal.
The
courts
are
meant
for
imparting justice and not to scuttle the
justice on technicalities. The length of
delay is also not very much material if