High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Surendra Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 10559 of 2005  RD-AH 7974 (27 April 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10559 of 2005.
State of U.P. and others.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut dated 4th February, 2005, whereby appeal no. 11 of 1989-90 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition.
In short, the brief facts of the present case are that against the sales tax recovery of Rs.39,422=91, which was due against the firm M/s. Badiumal Jagmundar Das & M/s. Durga Brick Fields of which Jagmundar Das was the partner having half share in the land in question, his share of land was put for auction on 9th August, 1989 after completing all legal formalities. In the auction notice, the estimated price of the land in auction was shown as Rs.60,000/- that has been taken place on 9th August, 1989. Six bidders, including the present petitioner participated and the petitioner's bid of Rs.59,000/- was found to be highest and the petitioner deposited one fourth amount of the bid on the date of auction and remaining three fourth was to be deposited within fifteen days. Since no application was filed within thirty days by Jagmundar Das for setting aside the auction sale as contemplated under Rule 285 (H) or 285 (I) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (In short 'the Rules'), the auction became final, as asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent no. 5, namely Pramod Kumar Jain filed an application claiming himself to be nephew of Jagmindar Das on 8th September, 1989 itself stating therein that the auction was not properly made and was not in accordance with law and that the price which has been passed in the aforesaid auction is not a just price, therefore the same be set aside. The Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Meerut directed the respondent no. 5 to deposit Rs.59,000/- plus five per cent. The respondent no. 5 deposited Rs.61,950/- on 28th September, 1989. An application dated 30th September, 1989 was filed by the petitioner on 3rd October, 1989 stating therein that since he is the highest bidder in the aforesaid public auction and the defaulter Jagmundar Das has not filed any application or objection under Rule 285 (H) of 'the Rules', therefore the application filed by third party i.e. Respondent no. 5 Pramod Kumar Jain was not maintainable and also the respondent no. 5 has not complied with the requirement of Rule 285 (H) of 'the Rules', thus the petitioner made a request that the auction dated 9th August, 1989 be confirmed. The respondent no. 4, namely, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Meerut vide its order dated 22nd December, 1989 set aside the auction dated 9th August, 1989 and directed for fresh auction. The petitioner preferred revision against the order dated 22nd December, 1989, which was subsequently converted into an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, namely Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut vide its order dated 15th June, 1990 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter respondent no.5 Pramod Kumar Jain filed writ petition before this Court being civil misc. writ petition no. 14908 of 1990 against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 15th June, 1990. This Court while allowing the writ petition filed by Pramod Kumar Jain vide order dated 24th May, 2004 held that "the approach of the Additional Commissioner cannot be appreciated, inasmuch the Additional District Magistrate to have recorded a finding as to whether the market value mentioned in the auction notice to the tune of Rs.59,000/- was justified or not. The said finding could be recorded only after appreciating as to what was the approximate market value of the land in question on the relevant date. In case the market value of the land in question has not been correctly menti0oned, the entire proceedings stood vitiated and auction proceedings were liable to be set aside. However, in case it is found that the value of land in question as mentioned in the auction notice was in accordance with market value prevailing on the relevant date, no interference with auction called for."
This Court therefore issued direction, which runs as "In the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner (Admn.) with regards to the market value of the land in question cannot be appreciated. The matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Admn.), Meerut Division, Meerut to re-determine the issue as to what was the approximate market value of the land in question and was it correctly mentioned in the notice or not. In case such issue is answered in affirmative that the market value has been correctly mentioned, no interference at the behest of Sri Pramod Kumar is called for in the auction proceedings. The appeal be accordingly decided after affording opportunity to the parties concerned and permitting them to land such further evidence as they may be advised."
Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by this Court, the matter has been decided by the Additional Commissioner (Administration)/appellate authority vide order impugned in this petition dated 4th February, 2005. The Additional Commissioner (Administration) found that the market value of the land auctioned was not correctly shown and the value of the land shown as Rs.60,000/- was not correct value and the actual market value was higher than Rs.60,000/-. In this circumstance, the appellate authority arrived at the conclusion as directed by this Court that the view taken by the Additional District Magistrate (F/R) for setting aside the auction and directing for re-auction do not warrant any interference and thus, the appeal in question filed by petitioner Surendra Kumar deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) is not correct in view of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 1996 A.W.C., 1861 - Wasi Ansari Vs. State of U.P. and others and also in the case reported in 1994 All.C.J., 608 - Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, and argued that in view of the law laid down by this Court findings arrived at by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) that the market value was not correctly shown in the auction notice, cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioner further argued that due to this reason, the order impugned in the present writ petition deserves to be quashed and the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed and the auction deserves to be upheld.
I have given my considered thoughts to the aforesaid arguments advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, but in view of the specific direction issued by this Court in the writ petition no. 14908 of 1990 filed by Pramod Kumar Jain, which is quoted above, asking for the fresh assessment of the market value, the finding arrived at by the appellate authority that the market value shown in the auction notice was less than the actual market value deserves to be upheld. The appellate authority has rightly decided the appeal following the direction issued by this Court, therefore no interference is required with the order impugned in the present writ petition.
In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.