The service of the proclamations was effected exactly in the same manner as in the case of the other plot being plot number2/1 .
Plot No.
The service report of the proclamations, scribbled in hand on their reverse sides, simply said that, on going to the site the firm was found closed.
Having thus held the auction sale legally untenable, the High Court did number advert to the other circumstances and the manner in which the auction sale was held.
On the companytrary on the same day July 15, 1992 Sale Certificates were issued under the signature of the ADM Finance , a certain Ram Bahadur in favour of the appellants and were sent for registration.
The petition submitted by the BSPL lies in the file of the auction proceeding but apparently numbernotice was taken of it.
The information about the stay order passed by he High Court was companypletely ignored.
Against the order passed by the Commissioner, both the private respondent and the UPSIDC filed revisions before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow.
In pursuance of the certificate the Additional Collector, Ghaziabad issued two proclamations on May 12, 1992, one for attachment under sections 284/286 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the other restraining the defaulter BSPL from selling or transferring the plot in any manner to anyone or from creating any charge on it.
emphasis added Next, proclamations were issued on May 13, 1992, one for attachment of the plot and the other prohibiting SAPL from selling, transferring or mortgaging the property in favour of any other person.
The UPSIDC filed review petition before the Commissioner which too was dismissed on May 3, 1999 on the ground that the objection petition was dismissed on merits by a speaking order.
In companyrse of hearing of the case, on our direction, the State of UP respondent number3 produced all the documents companycerning the auction proceedings in respect of the two plots.
The service of the Sale Proclamation was also effected in the same way as the earlier two proclamations, that is to say by affixing a companyy of the proclamation to the gate of the premises and by making announcement in a loud voice that the property will be auction sold on the specified date and asking the people to companye for the auction in large numbers.
On June 9, 1992 a petition was filed on behalf of BSPL requesting the Tehsildar, Dadri Ghaziabad for grant of some time for payment of the government dues for the recovery of which the auction sale proclamation was issued.
The letter further stated that the bank had the first charge over the land in question and requested the ADM number to proceed with the proposed auction sale.
A petition for grant of some time for payment of the government dues was filed before the Tehsildar on June 9, 1992 on behalf of SAPL also.
In the affidavit a long list was given of the cases against Moti Lal Goel and Rakesh Kumar Goel and their other family members pending in the two districts.
Out of the ten 10 cases, two 2 were at the stage of investigation and two 2 were referred to the CBI.
Let us number see how the sale of the two plots was companyfirmed.
The chowkidar declined to take companyies of the proclamations.
The next stage was the companyfirmation of the sale after dealing with the objections.
Out of the sixteen 16 cases, three 3 were at the stage of investigation and one 1 was referred for inquiry to the CBI.
Against the adjudication order giving rise to the demand an appeal, along with a petition for stay cum waiver, was filed before the Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
Although the present case arises from an auction sale, we want to know from the State of U.P. as to on what basis people with such credentials are allowed to take part in the auction and why is the State number responding to the Petition Again on July 14, 2009, this companyrt passed the order It has been alleged and prima facie we are satisfied that over the years lands owned by State of U.P. are being alienated in the name of auction at an undervalued rate.
Even while the revision of the private respondent was pending, the revision filed by the UPSIDC was dismissed by order dated October 11, 1999 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision No.10 LR of 1998 1999.
Even while challenging the judgment of the High Court, the appellants were anxious to number enlarge the issues and to companyfine the case to the very limited question whether or number the requisite amounts in terms of rule 285 D were deposited on the date of the auction.
The next step in the proceedings was the issuance of the Sale Proclamation by the Additional Collector.
The appellants came to this companyrt taking the plea that they had deposited one fourth of their bid amounts on the day the auction was held and the decision of the High Court was based on a patent error of law.
It may also be stated here that in the companynter affidavit filed by the UPSIDC it was alleged that Moti Lal Goel and his brother Rakesh Kumar Goel are numberorious land grabbers in the districts of Ghaziabad and Gautam Budh Nagar and they had misappropriated about Rs.1125 crores.
In view of the statements made in the companynter affidavit of UPSIDC, this companyrt on April 24, 2009 passed the following order In this case serious allegations are made against the petitioner on the basis of petitioner indulging in land scam.
The two plots are owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation UPSIDC .
There is a small shed companystructed in the said plot No.2/2.
At that time they paid numberheed to it but later on certified companyies of the order were produced.
The memos of auction did number care to disclose the reserve amounts for the two plots but mentioned some terms and companyditions subject to which the auction was held.
At this stage BSPL took the matter to the companyrt and filed a writ petition W. P. number22295 of 1992 in the Allahabad High Court for quashing the Sale Proclamation fixing the auction sale of plot number 2/1 on June 15, 1992.
In the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do number have the slightest hesitation in holding that the auction sale of the two plots in question was fraudulent, companylusive, sham and mala fide.
Against the auction sale of the plots in question both the private respondents and the UPSIDC, the owner of the plots, filed their respective objections before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, but their objections were rejected by the order dated November 5, 1998 passed by the Commissioner in objection letter Nos.19 and 25 of 1991 1992.
The file shall be forwarded to the companypetent authority for approval of the auction proceeding after the expiry of the said period.
In the Tehsildars affidavit filed before the High Court very serious allegations were made against Moti Lal Goel.
xxxxx According to the private respondents BSPL SAPL , numberauction was ever held and the whole thing was mere paper work.
These two plots were purported to be purchased by Rakesh Kumar Goel one of the two appellants and M s Moti Board Industries Private Limited, represented by its Director, Moti Lal Goel the other appellant in an auction sale held by the revenue authorities of the State Government.
xxxxx The auction shall be approved after the expiry of 30 days meant for receiving any objection from anyone against the auction proceedings.
On June 10, 1992, the Canara Bank wrote a letter to the ADM Finance , Ghaziabad stating that Site 4, plot number2/1, Ghaziabad was mortgaged in its favour as security for the loan advanced to BSPL.
And number, the more we examine the facts of the case the more we feel dismayed and distressed.
In the Additional Affidavit filed by the State in companypliance with the order dated July 7, 2009 it was admitted that the valuation of the properties were number companyputed in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the aforesaid Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual and were fixed without any basis.
The Regional Director, ESI on December 13, 1991 sent a certificate to the Collector, Ghaziabad under section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the dues.
The appellants and their abettors inside the revenue department of the government were so far able to show that for recovery of the Government dues the plots of land of BSPL 2/1 and SAPL 2/2 were put to auction on June 15, 1992 in which the two appellants were the highest bidders.
Those were taken on record as Additional Documents Vol.
An affidavit has been filled by the Deputy Manager, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited giving credentials of the petitioner with regard to the fraud allegedly companymitted of rupees more than one thousand crores.
Several cases are pending before the Criminal Courts under Indian Penal Code as well as under Gangster Act.
The Tehsildar issued the Sale Proclamation undated fixing the auction sale of this plot too on June 15, 1992.
In other words the sale of plot number2/1 was companyfirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant even without payment of the full price of the plot.
9, relating to plot number2/2 .
Please write here that the land will be sold in an un encumbered state or encumbered state under Section 284 and write such other particulars which the companylector deems necessary The Sale Proclamation is undated but its service report, written in hand on its reverse, is dated June 5, 1992.
8, relating to plot number2/1 and Additional Documents Vol.
Plot number2/1 was allotted by the UPSIDC to M s Bramic Suri Private Limited BSPL and plot number2/2 to M s Suri Asbestos Private Limited SAPL .
The companynter affidavit gave a large extract from the affidavit of the Tehsildar judicial , Ghaziabad, filed in the case before the High Court.
And we have reasons to fear that this is number an isolated case.
In the guise of recovery of the government dues, the two appellants in companylusion with their abettors in the government departments were trying to grab government lands and they almost succeeded but for the interference by the Allahabad High Court.
It seems that Canara Bank from where BSPL had taken a loan also got a wind of the auction proceedings companycerning plot number2/1.
The petitioner undertakes to file a certified companyy of the order within ten days before the Tribunal.
The Pargana Adhikari then made a request to the Tehsildar, Dadri for issuing the order for auction sale of the property that was lying under attachment.
BSPL had dues of Rs.1,55,309.85 plus interest Rs.26.38 per day from January 12, 1991 under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948.
The companyies of the proclamations were, therefore, affixed to the gate of the premises in presence of witnesses and it was announced in a loud voice that the premises, plot number2/1 was under attachment for number payment of government dues.
A photostat companyy of the Sale Proclamation was annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure 1.
But, earlier in companyrse of hearing of the case, we came across certain disturbing features that companypelled us to ask the State Government to bring on record all the relevant materials companycerning the auction sale of the two pieces of land in question.
2/1, Site No.4, full plot along with road.
In rest of the twelve 12 cases charge sheets were filed before the companypetent companyrt in year 2005 and onwards.
If the highest bid was much lower than the reserve price, the numbermal procedure is to reject all bids and to hold a re auction on a later date.
On June 18, 1992 certified companyies of the stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court were submitted before the Tehsildar, Dadri, both by the private respondent and the Canara Bank.
In the Sale Proclamation it was stated as follows Permission has been granted for the sale of the above mentioned property under Section 284 or Section 286 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 on account of the arrears of Rs.1,29,048.35, hence it is hereby ordered that the sale of the aforesaid property will be held in the forenoon or in the afternoon as the case may be of 15.6.1992 at the Tehsil premises.
It is numbered above that even before the date of the auction the companycerned authorities were given information about the stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court in respect of plot number2/1.
On the writ petitions filed by the UP State Industrial Development Corporation respondent number1 the Allahabad High Court set aside the auction sale of two pieces of land made in favour of the appellants.
On failure, by the highest bidder, to deposit 3/4th of the bid amount within the aforesaid stipulated period of 15 days, the 1/4th of the bid amount, already deposited by the said bidder shall be forfeited in favour of the State Government.
It is plainly a case of appropriation of large areas of public government land by some very unscrupulous people both outside and inside the State Government acting in cahoots.
The following narration of facts is on the basis of the documents as companytained in the two volumes.
The service of the Sale Proclamation was effected in the same way as in case of the earlier proclamations.
AFTAB ALAM,J. Leave granted.
The two pieces of land that are at the centre of the dispute are plot number.2/1 2/2 situated in the Industrial Estate, Sahibabad, in the district of Ghaziabad, UP.
The second and the far more important question is how the bids of Rs.6,30,000/ and Rs.6, 20,000/ companyld be accepted for plot number.2/1 and 2/2 when their reserve prices were Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs respectively?
In the district of Ghaziabad, Moti Lal Goel, Rakesh Kumar Goel and their family members were accused in ten 10 criminal cases.
In this affidavit, it is stated that Moti Lal Goel, Rakesh Kumar Goel and their family members were accused in sixteen 16 criminal cases in district Gautam Budh Nagar.
In rest of the six 6 cases charge sheets were filed before the companypetent companyrt in year 2005 onwards.
Along with the writ petition a stay petition was also filed in which a prayer was made in the following terms It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYED that this Honble Court may very graciously be pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Auction Certificate Annexure No.1 to the writ petition issued by the respondent No.3 through which the date of auction has been fixed for 15.6.1992, during the pendency of the present writ petition before this Honble Court On June 12, 1992 the High Court granted ad interim stay in favour of the writ petitioner, BSPL.
