Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sandeep Kumar Gupta v. Collector/D.M. & Others - WRIT - C No. 40897 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 7830 (26 April 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).




The petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.4.2002, Annexure-8, order dated 24.12.2001, Annexure-8A and the impugned order dated 9.9.2002, Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

The petitioner alleges that he is auction purchaser of the property and has deposited the amount, therefore, he is entitled to the property which has been purchased by the petitioner in the auction sale. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by means of Writ petition No.17863 of 2002 which was disposed by  by this Court vide order dated 1.5.2002 with liberty to the petitioner to raise an objection before the Collector and in case any objection is filed, the same may be considered and decided. By order dated 2.4.2002 the District Magistrate has rejected the objection. The petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed.

It has further been submitted by the petitioner that in view of the provisions of 285-H of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 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 the amount. As the same has not been done

and, therefore, the amount deposited by the respondents cannot be taken into account and in view of the rules, the auction sale will be deemed to be confirmed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. A finding in the order dated 2.4.2002 has been recorded that according to the terms and conditions Clause-6, the auction sale was not even approved by the competent authority and the auction dated 25.9.2001 was not in accordance with law, therefore, it was not accepted . Further a finding has been recorded that the respondent no.5 whose property has been auctioned, has already deposited the total balance amount, therefore, there is no question of auction of the property.

In view of the aforesaid fact, we see no justification to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed In case the petitioner makes an application to the District Magistrate for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner, the same may be considered according to law and the amount may be refunded to him.



W.P. No.40897 of 2002


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.