PRATAP RAI Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order passed by Board of Revenue setting aside sale of building and. land in favour of petitioner, in auction held for recovery of loan under Land Revenue Act. It is admitted that opposite party No. 3 entered into an agreement with opposite party No. 2, and in pursuance of it loan of Rs. 1,14,000.00 was advanced for industrial purposes,. As this amount was not paid the property pledged with Corporation, namely, building and land, was auctioned and it was purchased by petitioner on 7-3-75 for Rs. 21,000.00 and the sale was confirmed on 7-8-75. Out of this expenses, towards sale etc., were deducted and the balance of Rs. 20,968.50 was remitted by Tahsildar to the Corporation in Sept., 1976 and it was received in Oct., 1976. The Corporation filed an application on 7th March, 1976 for setting aside of sale for variety of reasons which was contested by petitioner. It was dismissed by Commissioner on 2nd Feb., 1976 as it was barred by time. It was also held that there appeared to be no irregularity or illegality in sale. In revision the Board of Revenue held that Corporation having come to know of sale on 7-3-75 the delay of two days only was negligible and it was unjust to expect that objection could have been filed within 30 days of auction sale. It further found that entire sale proceedings were illegal because land being Bhumidhari its auction could be held under Z. A. Act only. The Board further observed that as it was setting aside order of Commissioner on legal grounds it was not considering the irregularity and illegality in sale.

(2.) Both these findings have been challenged by the learned counsel for petitioner. As regards limitation it is well settled that even in those cases where it is to be calculated from the date of order it means the date of communication of order (see Raja Harish Chandra Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (AIR 1961 SC 1500) : (1961 All LJ 650) . But the order on applicability of Z. A. Act appears to be manifestly erroneous. Sub-sec. (3) was added to S. 143 by U. P. Amending Act, 1978. It reads as under:

(3.) In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Board of Revenue is quashed. The Board' is further directed to decide the claim of Corporation on merits. The petitioner shall be entitled to Its costs. Petition allowed.