Rajendra Pal Singh v. Commissioner and Others

1. Heard Mr. Jyotish Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had taken loan from the State Bank of India Auraia in the year 1981. Due to non-payment of the amount advanced to the petitioner, recovery proceeding was initiated and auction sale has taken place in respect to the petitioner's plot on 22.10.1986 and 12.2.1987. Petitioner was advised to file a civil suit No. 191 of 1987 for decree of permanent injunction as well as for possession impleading auction purchasers, State of U.P. and State Bank of India as defendants. In the aforementioned civil suit, an amendment application dated 28.3.1998 (146 Ka-2) was filed for adding the relief to the effect that both the sale deed executed in favour of auction purchaser should be declared void. The Civil Judge vide order dated 18.8.1999 rejected the amendment application on the ground that sale deed are not admissible in evidence so there is no need to declare the sale deed as void. Petitioner filed another amendment application (161-Ka) which was rejected by the Civil Judge vide order dated 18.1.2005 with observation that Civil Court is not competent to hold the attachment/ auction sale as null and void. Petitioner was further advised to file objection under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules accordingly objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules along with application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act was filed on behalf of petitioner before the Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was registered as objection No. 8 of 2005 under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and the same was heard by respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 16.11.2005 recording finding of fact that proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been initiated after 19 years from the date of auction dated 29.9.1986 although petitioner was fully aware about the auction took place on 29.9.1986. Petitioner challenged the order dated 16.11.2005 before the respondent no.1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow which was registered as revision No. 70 (L.R.) 2005-06. Learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2006 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2005 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 21.2.2006 passed by respondent no.1 (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to condone the delay in the light of the settled law and dispose of the petitioner's objection on merit after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the case."

3. This Court vide order dated 22.5.2006 issued notice to respondent no.3 but no interim order was granted by this Court in the aforementioned revision.

4. This Court vide order dated 12.8.2016 directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents to file counter affidavit and Office was directed to submit service report in respect to private respondent no.3.

5. Office has reported vide report dated 9.9.2016 that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgement has been received back after service.

6. In view of the Office report dated 9.9.2016, service is deemed sufficient upon the respondent no.3.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules filed by petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation and revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner, as such, the impugned orders should be set aside and matter should be sent back before the Commissioner to decide the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on merit. He further submitted that in respect to the auction sale, petitioner has initially filed a civil suit No. 191 of 1987 under the legal advise but after passing the order dated 18.1.2005 by the Civil Court rejecting the petitioner's amendment application regarding the auction sale, petitioner has initiated the proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules along with the prayer for condonation of delay, as such, the objection filed on behalf of petitioner under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules cannot be dismissed/ rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that under the order of Collector, petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 31.3.1987 and 1.4.1987. He placed reliance upon the certain judgements which was supplied to the Court along with written submission after judgement was reserved by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also supplied the supplementary affidavit dated 14.2.2025 along with the written submission which cannot be entertained as the judgement was already reserved by the Court on 6.2.2025. The particulars of the judgements relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are as follows:- "(i) Writ C No. 14331 of 2002 decided on 20.2.2013 (ii) 2012 LawSuit (All) 597 Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Commissioner and Others (iii) AIR 1987 SC 1353 Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji (iv) 1988 0 Supreme (SC) 198 G. Ramegowda Major etc. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore & Basavalingappa Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore (v) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62182 of 2005 Promod Kumar Ojha Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Basti and Others. decided on 21.1.2008"

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules as the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been filed after 19 years from the date of auction of sale. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He submitted that right has been created in favour of auction purchaser and no interim order is operating in the matter since the auction has taken place in the matter in the year 1986, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect to the loan advanced to the petitioner by the Bank, the recovery proceeding was initiated and holdings of the petitioner was auctioned on 29.9.1986. There is also no dispute about the fact that objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was filed on 5.4.2005 before the Commissioner which was rejected by Additional Commissioner on the ground of limitation. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2006.

11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will be relevant which is as under:- "285-I (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of 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. (ii) ...... (iii) The order of the Commissioner passed under this Rule shall be final."

12. The perusal of the provisions as quoted above demonstrate that objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, objection is to be filed before Commissioner within 30 days from the date of sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the same.

13. The perusal of Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will also be relevant which is as under:- " 285-K- If no application under Rule 285-I is made within the time allowed therefor, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred Provided that nothing contained in this Rule shall bar the institution of a suit in the Civil Court for the purposes of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud."

14. The provisions contained under Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules as quoted above demonstrate that if no application under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules is made within time as mentioned under Rule Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules then the claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the same shall be bar but suit in the Civil Court for the purposes of setting aside the same on the ground of fraud can be filed by the person concerned.

15. In the instant matter, the petitioner was aware about the auction sale conducted in the matter as petitioner as himself annexed the application dated 21.3.1987 filed before the District Magistrate regarding auction sale conducted in the matter as well as petitioner has annexed the order passed in civil suit No. 191 of 1987 which demonstrate that petitioner was aware about the auction sale conducted in the matter but the proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been initiated by the petitioner after 19 years in respect to the auction conducted in the year 1986. The Commissioner has rejected the objection filed by petitioner under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on the ground of limitation recording finding of fact that petitioner was aware about the auction sale, as such, objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules cannot be entertained after such long period.

16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions contained under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by Commissioner and Board of Revenue.

17. It is also material to mention that civil suit for declaring auction sale as null and void on the ground of fraud is maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and petitioner has filed the civil suit in the year 1987 and pursuing the remedy before the Civil Court, as such, the filing of objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules after 19 years for declaring the auction sale as null and void cannot be entertained.

18. So far as the law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner along with the written argument are concerned , the same will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as petitioner was aware about the auction sale and was pursuing the remedy before the authorities as well as the Civil Court.

19. No interference is required in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

20. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Jyotish Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had taken loan from the State Bank of India Auraia in the year 1981. Due to non-payment of the amount advanced to the petitioner, recovery proceeding was initiated and auction sale has taken place in respect to the petitioner's plot on 22.10.1986 and 12.2.1987. Petitioner was advised to file a civil suit No. 191 of 1987 for decree of permanent injunction as well as for possession impleading auction purchasers, State of U.P. and State Bank of India as defendants. In the aforementioned civil suit, an amendment application dated 28.3.1998 (146 Ka-2) was filed for adding the relief to the effect that both the sale deed executed in favour of auction purchaser should be declared void. The Civil Judge vide order dated 18.8.1999 rejected the amendment application on the ground that sale deed are not admissible in evidence so there is no need to declare the sale deed as void. Petitioner filed another amendment application (161-Ka) which was rejected by the Civil Judge vide order dated 18.1.2005 with observation that Civil Court is not competent to hold the attachment/ auction sale as null and void. Petitioner was further advised to file objection under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules accordingly objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules along with application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act was filed on behalf of petitioner before the Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was registered as objection No. 8 of 2005 under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and the same was heard by respondent no.2, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 16.11.2005 recording finding of fact that proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been initiated after 19 years from the date of auction dated 29.9.1986 although petitioner was fully aware about the auction took place on 29.9.1986. Petitioner challenged the order dated 16.11.2005 before the respondent no.1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow which was registered as revision No. 70 (L.R.) 2005-06. Learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2006 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 16.11.2005 passed by respondent no.2 and order dated 21.2.2006 passed by respondent no.1 (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.2 to condone the delay in the light of the settled law and dispose of the petitioner's objection on merit after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties to the case."

3. This Court vide order dated 22.5.2006 issued notice to respondent no.3 but no interim order was granted by this Court in the aforementioned revision.

4. This Court vide order dated 12.8.2016 directed the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents to file counter affidavit and Office was directed to submit service report in respect to private respondent no.3.

5. Office has reported vide report dated 9.9.2016 that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgement has been received back after service.

6. In view of the Office report dated 9.9.2016, service is deemed sufficient upon the respondent no.3.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules filed by petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation and revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed in arbitrary manner, as such, the impugned orders should be set aside and matter should be sent back before the Commissioner to decide the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on merit. He further submitted that in respect to the auction sale, petitioner has initially filed a civil suit No. 191 of 1987 under the legal advise but after passing the order dated 18.1.2005 by the Civil Court rejecting the petitioner's amendment application regarding the auction sale, petitioner has initiated the proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules along with the prayer for condonation of delay, as such, the objection filed on behalf of petitioner under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules cannot be dismissed/ rejected on the ground of limitation. He further submitted that under the order of Collector, petitioner has deposited Rs. 40,000/- on 31.3.1987 and 1.4.1987. He placed reliance upon the certain judgements which was supplied to the Court along with written submission after judgement was reserved by this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has also supplied the supplementary affidavit dated 14.2.2025 along with the written submission which cannot be entertained as the judgement was already reserved by the Court on 6.2.2025. The particulars of the judgements relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are as follows:- "(i) Writ C No. 14331 of 2002 decided on 20.2.2013 (ii) 2012 LawSuit (All) 597 Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Commissioner and Others (iii) AIR 1987 SC 1353 Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag Vs. Katiji (iv) 1988 0 Supreme (SC) 198 G. Ramegowda Major etc. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore & Basavalingappa Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore (v) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62182 of 2005 Promod Kumar Ojha Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Basti and Others. decided on 21.1.2008"

8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that there is no illegality in the order rejecting the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules as the objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been filed after 19 years from the date of auction of sale. He further submitted that revision filed by petitioner has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He submitted that right has been created in favour of auction purchaser and no interim order is operating in the matter since the auction has taken place in the matter in the year 1986, as such, no interference is required in the matter.

9. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute about the fact that in respect to the loan advanced to the petitioner by the Bank, the recovery proceeding was initiated and holdings of the petitioner was auctioned on 29.9.1986. There is also no dispute about the fact that objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was filed on 5.4.2005 before the Commissioner which was rejected by Additional Commissioner on the ground of limitation. There is also no dispute about the fact that revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed by Board of Revenue vide order dated 21.2.2006.

11. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will be relevant which is as under:- "285-I (i) At any time within thirty days from the date of 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. (ii) ...... (iii) The order of the Commissioner passed under this Rule shall be final."

12. The perusal of the provisions as quoted above demonstrate that objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, objection is to be filed before Commissioner within 30 days from the date of sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the same.

13. The perusal of Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules will also be relevant which is as under:- " 285-K- If no application under Rule 285-I is made within the time allowed therefor, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred Provided that nothing contained in this Rule shall bar the institution of a suit in the Civil Court for the purposes of setting aside a sale on the ground of fraud."

14. The provisions contained under Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules as quoted above demonstrate that if no application under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules is made within time as mentioned under Rule Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules then the claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the same shall be bar but suit in the Civil Court for the purposes of setting aside the same on the ground of fraud can be filed by the person concerned.

15. In the instant matter, the petitioner was aware about the auction sale conducted in the matter as petitioner as himself annexed the application dated 21.3.1987 filed before the District Magistrate regarding auction sale conducted in the matter as well as petitioner has annexed the order passed in civil suit No. 191 of 1987 which demonstrate that petitioner was aware about the auction sale conducted in the matter but the proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been initiated by the petitioner after 19 years in respect to the auction conducted in the year 1986. The Commissioner has rejected the objection filed by petitioner under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules on the ground of limitation recording finding of fact that petitioner was aware about the auction sale, as such, objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules cannot be entertained after such long period.

16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the provisions contained under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by Commissioner and Board of Revenue.

17. It is also material to mention that civil suit for declaring auction sale as null and void on the ground of fraud is maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Rule 285-K of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and petitioner has filed the civil suit in the year 1987 and pursuing the remedy before the Civil Court, as such, the filing of objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules after 19 years for declaring the auction sale as null and void cannot be entertained.

18. So far as the law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner along with the written argument are concerned , the same will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as petitioner was aware about the auction sale and was pursuing the remedy before the authorities as well as the Civil Court.

19. No interference is required in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

20. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad