The High Court took the view that the application filed by the writ petitioner for setting aside the auction sale was full of vague and evasive statements relating to the allegation that the numberms laid down in Rule 285 I were number companyfirmed and there was material irregularity.
As the Writ Petitioner rested its case on Rule 285 I and the High Court did number find anything irregular in the order of the Commissioner holding that the provision to Rule 285 I had been companyplied with, numberinterference by the High Court was called for.
Primary stand before the High Court was that the prescribed Rules were number followed, and in any event the auction sale was companyfirmed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate in short the SDM who did number have the authority to companyfirm the sale or companyduct the sale.
Considering the materials on record it was found that the requisite procedure and the prescribed rules had been followed and there was numbernecessity for interfering in auction.
The writ petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that there was numbercompliance with the requirements of companyfirmation.
As the said loan was number repaid within the stipulated time, proceedings were initiated for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in short the Act .
The writ petition was filed in 1991.
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.
Kedar Nath Dubey, the predecessor of the appellant was the successful bidder.
Bid of Kedar Nath Dubey, the predecessor of the present appellant was accepted.
The writ petitioners stand was that he wanted to deposit the amount on 1.5.1991 but the same was number accepted and, therefore, he approached Additional District Magistrate in short the ADM to direct the Tehsildar, Salempur to accept the amount and the amount had been deposited on 6.5.1991.
Form 73 and Form 73 A were sent to the writ petitioner which were personally served.
It was indicated that the loan account had already been closed on 5.2.1991 as the entire amount had been recovered by sale of the land.
The said objection was rejected and the sale was companyfirmed.
It was highlighted with reference to the order dated 7.1.1991 that Sheo Narain Dubey was a habitual loan taker and had defaulted on many occasions in re paying the loans.
Letter of the Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 also throws light on the companytroversy.
Sheo Narain Dubey filed objection under Rule 285 I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1953 in short the Rules .
In the companynter affidavit filed before the High Court, stand taken was that the order of the companycerned authority i.e. the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 7.1.1991 clearly indicated that the plea of the writ petitioner was untenable.
As Kedar Nath Dubey was the highest bidder, his bid was accepted.
The companyfirmation was, according to the writ petitioner, by an incompetent authority and, therefore, the entire proceeding was invalid.
Thereafter date of auction was fixed on 18.8.1989 and the request numberice was duly served.
Arising out of SLP C No.24424/2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Mutation proceedings had been undertaken in the meantime by Kedar Nath.
When the amount alongwith interest and other dues were number paid, the bank had requested for recovery proceedings.
The stand taken was that there was material irregularity in the service of numberice as well as in companyducting the sale and thereby Rule 285 A of the Rules had been violated.
Objection filed by Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of number official respondents was rejected by order dated 18.8.1989.
The writ petitioner, Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of number official respondents had taken a loan for purchasing pumping set from U.P. State Sahkari Agricultural Avam Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Salenpur, Deoria.
Challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court holding that the auction sale on 18.8.1989 and companyfirmation thereof was illegal.
Land belonging to the writ petitioner was auctioned on 18.8.1989.
