VED PRAKASH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Viresh Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhayan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

(2.) The proceedings arise out of an alleged auction in favour of the Petitioner of the holding of the contesting Respondents which was subject matter of an attachment and sale by the Tehsil Authorities. The said auction, which was held on 29.8.1998, came to be confirmed on 15th June, 1999. The Respondents filed an objection under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 on 1st of November, 1999. A copy of the objection has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In para 11 of the said objection a clear plea had been raised that the objector came to know about the said proceedings only a day before, and therefore, he has not committed any wilful delay in the presentation of the objection which ought to have been condoned and the objection should be allowed. It appears that a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act had not been moved which came to be filed on 31st July, 2001 in the said proceedings. The learned Commissioner proceeded to reject the said objection, vide order dated 18th April, 2002, on the ground that Section 5 application has been filed after one year and nine months of the filing of the objection, and therefore, the said delay disentitles the Petitioner from maintaining the objection. The Respondent went up in a revision before the Board of Revenue and the same was allowed on 18.10.2002 on the ground that there were irregularities in the auction including the fact that the U.P. Financial Corporation had already been approached by the contesting Respondents for withdrawal of the recovery certificate, and therefore, it would not be appropriate to confirm the same in the aforesaid circumstances. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue not only set aside the order of the learned Commissioner but also set aside the auction as well.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Board of Revenue has travelled beyond its jurisdiction in setting aside the auction, inasmuch as, there was neither any material irregularity nor any inadequacy of bid and as such no ground was available so as to set aside the auction. Even if, the Board was of the opinion that the delay deserves to be condoned, then the matter should have been remitted back to the learned Commissioner for deciding the same on merits and hence the impugned orders vitiated.