# Sher Bahadur Singh v. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1647
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-02
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002144 of 2002
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sher-bahadur-singh-v-addl-commissioner-judicial-lucknow-ors-54187
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

2 All. Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors.
1647
International Edition at page 28, 'aggrieved person' is defined to mean "subjected to ill-treatment,
feeling an injury or injustice. Injured, as by legal decision adversely infringing upon one's rights".
In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fifth Ed., Vol. 1, pages 83-84, person aggrieved means "person
injured or damaged in a legal sense".

30. In Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. at page 65, aggrieved has been defined to mean
"having suffered loss or injury; damnified; injured", aggrieved person has been defined to mean:

"One whose legal right is invaded by an act complained of, or whose pecuniary interest is
directly and adversely affected by a decree or judgment. One whose right of property may be
established or divested. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some
personal, pecuniary or property right, or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation."

31. Thus, the person aggrieved is, therefore, in this context, would mean a person who had
suffered legal injury or one who has been unjustly deprived or denied of something.

32. From perusal of the facts as narrated above and also for the arguments as has been raised
by the counsel for the respondents it is clear that complainants who moved application under
Section 198(4) of the Act, 1950 against the petitioners does not fall within the defenition of person
aggrieved.

33. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order dated 03.10.2016
passed by the Respondent No.1 namely Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut as well
as order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Respondent No.2 namely Additional Collector/ A.D.M.,
(Administration), Bulandshahar are liable to be set aside and are hereby quashed.

34. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1647
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 1002144 of 2002

Sher Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for consideration
Petitioner's land was auctioned for recovery of dues. Sale conducted and approved by S.D.O.. Petitioner filed
appeal before Commissioner. Commissioner decided matter on merits without formally condoning delay.
Petitioner challenged jurisdiction of S.D.O. to confirm sale.
1648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Headnotes
A. Land law-U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950-Sections 279, 284, 286 &
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,-Rr. 272, 273,281-285,285-A, 285-C, 285-H, 285-J-Recovery of arrearsAuction sale of land-Jurisdiction-Confirmation of sale-Power of Collector Vs S.D.O./Assistant
Collector-Delegation of Powers-Scope-Power to confirm sale vests exclusively in Collector and
not in S.D. O. /Assistant collector-Though S.D.O. may be authorised to conduct auction
proceedings, such delegation does not extend to confirmation of sale unless specifically
authorised-In absence of any material showing such authorization, order of S.D.O. confirming
sale is without jurisdiction-Procedural irregularity-Appeal decided without formal delay
condonation vitiates order-Procedural compliance is mandatory-Matter remanded for fresh
decision. Allowed.(Para 11 to 22)
Held
The court examined the statutory framework under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,1950 & Rules and held that the
power to confirm sale is vested exclusively in the Collector. The court further held that the appellate authority
committed a procedural illegality by deciding the appeal on merits without formally allowing the delay
condonation application, rendering the order unsustainable in law. Emphasizing that delegated authorities
must act strictly within the limits of their conferred powers and that procedural compliance is mandatory, the
court concluded that the order passed by the S.D.O. confirming the sale was without jurisdiction and void.
The impugned order was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Additional Commissioner to
decide the issue afresh. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Brahm Singh Vs Board of Revenue & Ors 2008 (5) ADJ 331, Ajay Upadhayay Vs Collector, Ballia & Ors 2008
SCC OnLine All 28, Jagar Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (1994) 12 LCD 612-referred to.

List of Acts
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950 & U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules

List of Keywords
Auction sale, Recovery of arrears, Jurisdiction, Confirmation of sale, Collector powers, S.D.O. Powers,
Delegation, Delay condonation, void order, Remand.

Case Arising from
CIVIL JURISDICITON: WRIT-C No.- 1002144 of 2002
Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Additional Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & 2 Ors
From the judgment and order dated 02.02.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner(s):-
Shafiq Mirza Humayun Mirza, Syed Ahmad Jamal
Advs. for Respondent(s):-
 C.S.C., A.z Siddiqui, Asheesh Agnihotri, I.h Farooqui, Ikhlaq Hussion Farooqui, Praveen Chandra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri Syed Ahmad Jamal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Satrughan
Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-State.

2. None has put in appearance for the private respondents.
2 All. Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors.
1649

3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 10.5.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner
(Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow contained in Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.

4. Factual matrix of the case is that plot no.611 measuring 311, plot no.11/1 measuring 7.653,
plot no.116 measuring 759 and plot no.51 measuring 0.63 are said to have been auctioned for
recovery of certain alleged dues against the petitioner. On 15.2.2000, auction is said to have taken
place. On 23.3.2000, the said auction is said to have been approved.

Rule 281 onwards of the Rules provide for sale of immovable property. According to Rule 281
of the Rules recourse can only be had to the sale of holding under Section 284 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. When the processes specified in clauses (a), (b),
(c) or (d) of Section 279 of the Act would be insufficient for the recovery of the arrears.

The process for sale of holding under Section 284 of the Act and other immovable property
under Section 286 shall be issued by the Collector. Section 284 of the Act provides that the
Collector may in additional to or instead of any of the processes herein before specified either on
his own motion or on the application of the Land Management Committee, attach the holding in
respect of which an arrears is due.

Rule 272 of the Rules provides that process for attachment of holding under clause (d) of
Section 279 may be issued only by the Collector. Rule 273 of the Rules provides that wherein any
land is attached a proclamation in Z.A. Form-73 shall be affixed at a conspicuous place in the
village in which the land is situate and it shall also be notified by beat of drum. The attachment of
holding under the Rules shall be effected in the matter prescribed under Order 21 Rule 54 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 282 of the Rules provides for a proclamation of sale.

Rule 283 of the Rules provides the manner in which the Collector has to issue the sale
proclamation. Rule 283 also deals regarding the said manner. Rule 285-A provides that 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. It further makes it clear that no such sale shall
take place on a Sunday or other gazetted holiday or until after the expiration of atleast 30 days from
the date on which the proclamation under Rule 282 was issued. It also provides that the Collector
may from time to time postpone the sale.

Rule 285-C provides that if the defaulter pays the arrears in respect of which the land for
other immovable property is to be sold at any time before the day fixed for the same, the person
authorized to collect the amount in arrears or to the person appointed under Rule 282-A to conduct
the sale, the sale officer, on being satisfied of the payment shall stay the sale.

Rule 285-H of the Rules provides that any persons whose holding or other immovable
property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within 30 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% of the purchase-money; and (b) for payment on account of the arrears, the
amount specified in the proclamation in Z.A. Form-74 as that for the recovery of which the sale
1650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

The S.D.O., Sadar passed an order on 23.3.2000 approving the sale. The petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the Commissioner without passing order on the
delay condonation application set aside the matter on merits vide order dated 10.5.2002. Prior to
passing of the order, an interim order was also also granted on 26.4.2000.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the S.D.O. is
wholly without jurisdiction as he is not empowered to confirm/ approve the sale. In the memo of
appeal, the petitioner took specific ground that the S.D.O. has no power to pass order of approval of
sale and in spite of that, without condoning the delay, the appellate Court proceeded to decide the
appeal on merits. In this view of the matter, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
without allowing delay condonation application, there was no justification on the part of the
appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
following judgments:

(i) Brahm Singh v. Board of Revenue and others reported in 2008(5)ADJ 331

(ii) Ajay Upadhayay v. Collector, Ballia and others reported in 2008 SCC OnLine
All 28

7. Reverting the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Chaudhary,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that the S.D.O. is empowered to pass order of
sale and placed reliance upon Full-Bench judgment rendered in the case of Jagar Pal Singh v.
State of U.P. and others reported in the case of (1994) 12 LCD 612.

8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel also placed reliance upon the provisions
contained in 285(i) and 285(k) and submitted that the petitioner cannot traveled beyond limitation
of 30 days in approaching the Commissioner in revision.

9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel lastly submitted that remedy lies in filing civil
suit in case of any default or irregularity in passing the order by the S.D.O..

10. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the
material on record as well as law-reports cited by learned counsel for the parties.

11. For deciding the controversy involved in the present writ petition, relevant portion of the
judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is being quoted below:

(i) Brahm Singh (supra):-
2 All. Sher Bahadur Singh Vs. Addl. Commissioner Judicial Lucknow & Ors.
1651

34. The contention raised was that under Section 15A of 1952 Act, the Collector has only
been empowered to cancel the grant of any land made under Section 14 of 1952 Act if it is found to
have been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. It was further contended in that matter that the
Collector appointed under Section 14 of 1901 Act is a distinct and separate authority to that of the
Additional Collector appointed under Section 14A of 1901 Act and thus, in view of Section 15A of
1952 Act, the Additional Collector is not vested with the power to cancel the grant. Their Lordships
repelled the contention and held as under:

We find no merit in aforementioned submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act empowers an Additional
Collector in such cases or class of cases as the Collector concerned may direct. Sub-section (4) then
lays down that the U.P. Land Revenue Act and every other law for the time being applicable to a
Collector shall apply to every Additional Collector, when exercising any powers or discharging any
duties under Sub-section (3), as if he were the Collector of the district. This provision makes it
absolutely clear that in cases, whether they pertain to U.P. Land Revenue Act or to any other law,
assigned by the Collector to an Additional Collector, the Additional Collector is fully entitled to
perform the functions of the Collector. Accordingly in cases assigned to him by the Collector, the
Additional Collector is fully competent to exercise the functions of a Collector under Section 15A
of the U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act and it cannot be said that the Additional Collector lacks
jurisdiction to pass an order cancelling the grant made in favour of the petitioners on ground that he
was not the Collector of the districts.

35. We, having taken note of the provisions contained in 1901 Act and 1950 Act and in
view of the discussions made earlier, endorse the similar view. Therefore, in Brij Kishore (supra) it
has rightly been held that by virtue of Sub-section (4) of Section 14A of 1901 Act the Additional
Collector when exercises power of Collector as directed by the Collector. Is Collector of the
District for the purpose of all such Acts where the Bench with respect, while considering the
validity of an order passed by the Additional Collector under Section 198(4) of 1950 Act, has only
considered the provisions contained in Sub-section (3) of Section 14A of 1901 Act and it appears
that their Lordships attention was not drawn to Sub-section (4) and, therefore, their Lordships
proceeded as there was no order that the Additional Collector, Deoria was directed to exercise
power. However, their Lordships, with respect, did not consider the effect of Sub-section (4) of
Section 14A and, therefore, there is no discussion with respect to Sub-section (4) of Section 14A
while interpreting the expression 'Collector' in the aforesaid case nor their Lordship's attention was
drawn to the their judgment in the case of Brij Kishore (supra) and thus, with respect, in our view,
the judgment in the case of Shiv Avtar (supra) is per incuriam and does not lay down the correct
law and therefore, the law laid down in the case of Brij Kishore and Ors. v. Atrtkta Zila Adhikari
and Ors. (supra) is the correct law.

(ii) Ajay Upadhayay (supra):-

8. According to Government Order No.1/1/76(2)(6)-Rajasva-7 dated 17-1-1976, all
Assistant Collectors and In-charge of Tahsildars have been authorized to sanction auction and on
this basis, it has been argued that S.D.O./ Dy. Collector, Sikandrpur, Ballia was authorised to set
aside the sale, but we do not agree with the interpretation made by learned counsel for the
1652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondents. In the case of Jagat Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 1994 ACJ 608, this Court has clearly
held that in view of said Notification/ Government Order, the S.D.O./Dy. Collector concerned has
been given power only to conduct sale and not to confirm or set aside sale. That power lies only
with the Collector concerned and no one else.

12. On perusal of the above-extracted judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it
is evident that whether Sub-divisional Officer had power to confirm the sale or not. It has been seen in the
earlier part of this judgment that under Rule 285J of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules
the Collector has to confirm the sale after expiry of the period of 30 days if the sale does not contravene the
provisions of Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The power to confirm the
sale vests with the Collector and not with the Sub Divisional Officer.

13. The Board of Revenue has delegated the power to the Assistant Collector/ Sub Divisional
Officer on 17.11.1976 to perform the functions of the Collector which are performed by the Collector vide
Revenue Board Notification No.1/1/76(3)6 dated 17.11.1976. 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.

14. 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 17.11.1976
will not apply to the facts of the case.

15. 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 17.11.1976 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 285I of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules.

16. In the judgment in the case of Ajay Upadhayay (supra), a similar view was taken by the
Division Bench of this Court.

17. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel relied upon judgment of Full Bench rendered in
the case of Brahm Singh (supra) and submitted that once the Collector authorizes to Assistant Collector/
Sub Divisional Officer to confirm the sale, he can pass an order in this regard.

18. On perusal of the above-extracted judgment relied upon by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel, it is crystal clear that authorization is must by the Collector to pass an appropriate order by the
Assistant Collector.
2 All. State of U.P. Vs. Addl. Commissioner Lucknow
1653

In the present case, there is no material to establish that at any point of time, the Collector
authorized to the Assistant Collector/ Sub-Divisional Officer to confirm the sale. Therefore, the judgment
relied upon by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not applied to the present facts and
circumstances of the case.

19. In regard to second objection that under provision of Rule 285(i) and Rule 285(k) of the Rules, in
case no objection is filed within 30 days from the date of auction sale, there is no remedy available to the
petitioner to approach before any Forum, I have perused the record as well as aforesaid provisions of Rules
and on its perusal it is clear that the petitioner filed appeal against the order of S.D.O. along with delay
condonation application. The Additional Commissioner passed the order rejecting claim set up by the
petitioner without condoning the delay on merits. Meaning thereby, in approaching the Commissioner, delay
was condoned and the order was passed on merits, although no formal order was passed on delay
condonation application. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner is wholly
without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

20. The judgment relied upon by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has no where considered
the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

21. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons assigned above, this
Court of the considered opinion that the S.D.O. has no power to confirm the sale. It is the Collector who is
empowered to confirm the sale. The Additional Collector has no where considered in his order in regard to
ground taken in paragraph 14 of the memo of appeal, especifically that the power to confirm the sale does not
lie upon the S.D.O.

22. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 10.5.2002 passed by the
Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow is quashed.

23. However, the matter is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner to decide the jurisdiction of
the S.D.O. that whether the order dated 23.03.2000 is within his jurisdiction or not.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1653
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ C No. 3000077 of 1999

State of U.P. ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Commissioner Lucknow ...Respondent