# Supreme Court in Shanti Devi v. State

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 719
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5435 of 1996
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/supreme-court-in-shanti-devi-v-state-41106
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3 All] Ram Barai Prasad V. State of U.P. and others
719
petitioner's representation considering the
directions embodied in the judgment and
also
taking
into
consideration
the
difficulties and aptitude of farmers and if
it so requires, the Banks may also
reschedule the installments accordingly.
In view of the above a general mandamus
is also issued that in case any private
agency is found to be engaged in making
recovery
made
under
the
U.P.
Agricultural Credit Act, immediately
action shall be initiated against him for
launching criminal prosecution besides
taking action against the Bank concerned
which has employed such private agent.

27. Let a copy of this judgment be
circulated
to
all
District
Magistrates/S.S.Ps/S.Ps in the State for
compliance through Home Secretary.
The Home Secretary shall also issue
circulars to all concerned for strict
implementation of direction contained
in this judgment. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5435 of 1996

Ram Barai Prasad

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Lal Singh
Sri R.C. Shukla
Sri R.P. Shukla
Sri R.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Deo Prakash Singh
Sri Kaushal Kant
Sri S.K. Jaiswal
Sri K.S. Singh

U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules-Rule-285 (1)-
Auction sale of agricultural propertypetitioner already deposited entire out
standing amount on 14.6.90-No occasion
for auction on 22.8.90-auction sale held
illegal-consequential direction issued.

Held: Para 4

As there were no arrear against the
petitioner hence there was no occasion
for
auction
sale
of
petitioner's
agricultural
property.
The
sale
was
therefore void ab initio. The learned
commissioner
while
dismissing
the
objection under Rule 285 (I) has gone on
technicalities
like
delay
etc.
The
Supreme Court in Shanti Devi Vs. State
of U.P AIR 1997 SC 3541 has held that if
sale is void then it can be set-aside by
the High Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1997 SC-1547

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. List revised. No one is present on
behalf
of
the
auction
purchaser,
respondent No.5. Heard learned counsel
for the petitioner as well as learned
standing counsel for the respondents 1 to
3 and 6. Learned standing counsel for
respondent No.4 Union Bank of India is
also not present.

2. Petitioner took some loan for
purchasing a tractor from respondent
No.4, Union Bank of India, Jangipur
Branch Ghazipur. Petitioner defaulted in
payment of instalment of loan, hence,
recovery certificate was issued by the
bank to the Tehsil authorities who in turn
issued citation. Thereafter, according to
the petitioner, he cleared all the dues on
14.6.1990 by paying balance amount to
720 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
the Amin. It has further been stated that
some excess amount had also been paid
by the petitioner which was to the tune of
Rs.354.92/-.
The
said
amount
of
Rs.354.92/- remained over paid as rebate
of
Rs.10000/-
was
granted
to the
petitioner. The agricultural property of the
petitioner was auctioned on 22.8.1990 for
realisation of the dues even though there
were no dues on that date. Hari Prasad
respondent No.5 was auction purchaser.
The land was sold for Rs.60000/- while
according to learned counsel for the
petitioner reserved price was fixed for
Rs.2 Lakhs. Thereafter, when petitioner
came to know about the auction sale he
raised objection and ultimately filed
application under Rule 285 (I) of the
Rules framed under U.P.Z.A.L.R Act
being
sale
case
(objection)
No.
4/17/38/4/13/21/1 of 1990. The said
application was rejected on 30.12.1995 by
Additional
Commissioner,
(Administration)
Varanasi
division,
Varanasi. The said order has been
challenged through this writ petition.

3. The State in its counter affidavit
has admitted that there were no dues on
22.8.1990. It may be mentioned that sale
was confirmed on 22.9.1990. Even in the
counter affidavit of respondent No.5 there
is no specific denial of the fact that dues
had been cleared on 14.6.1990. In the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
State by the Tehsildar Saidpur district
Ghazipur in para 15, it is clearly admitted
that "it is stated that during the
continuance of the recovery proceedings,
the petitioner had obtained the receipt
from the collection Amin of the tehsil
after depositing arrear/loan amount" .

4. As there were no arrear against
the petitioner hence there was no occasion
for auction sale of petitioner's agricultural
property. The sale was therefore void ab
initio. The learned commissioner while
dismissing the objection under Rule 285
(I) has gone on technicalities like delay
etc. The Supreme Court in Shanti Devi
Vs. State of U.P AIR 1997 SC 3541 has
held that if sale is void then it can be setaside by the High Court in exercise of
writ jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, writ petition is
allowed. Order dated 30.12.1995 passed
by learned Additional Commissioner
(Administration),
Varanasi
division
Varanasi is set-aside. Auction sale dated
22.8.1990 and Sale confirmation order
dated 22.9.1990 are also set-aside. Let no
interference be made in the possession of
the petitioner and name of the petitioner
be also re-entered in the revenue records
by the Tehsil authorities.

6. The amount of Rs.65000/-
directed to be deposited by the petitioner
under interim order dated 13.2.1996
passed by this court in this writ petition
shall at once be returned to the petitioner
along with accrued interest, if any.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5834 of 2007

Subedar Mishra

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha