RAM SAGAR Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement with regard to auction of the pond over Plot No.353 situate at Village Daulatpur, Tehsil- Meh Nagar, Police Station- Meh Nagar, District- Azamgarh, was published in the newspaper on 24/7/2019. The auction took place on 28/8/2019 in which there were three bidders, namely, Dinesh, Rakesh and Ram Sagar (the petitioner). Dinesh made a bid of Rs.1,10,000.00 per year; Rakesh made a bid of Rs.1,05,000.00 per year and the petitioner Ram Sagar made a bid of Rs.12,000.00 per year.

(2.) Admittedly, amongst the various bids, the bid of Rakesh was found to be the highest and, therefore, he was required to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount. When the highest bidder Rakesh and the second highest bidder Dinesh did not deposit the amount, the petitioner claimed a right to get the allotment as he was the only bidder who was then available for getting the allotment. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to deposit the amount as per the bid and on 24/10/2019, the petitioner also deposited Rs.1,20,000.00 for a complete tenure of ten years as is clear from the receipt which is annexed as Annexure No.2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, it appears that various reports were called for by the Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Revenue Inspector gave a report on 21/10/2019 that the petitioner was the only bidder available after Rakesh and Dinesh who had not deposited the required amounts as per their bids and therefore, the petitioner was entitled for the allotment. On the report of the Revenue Inspector, however the Tehsildar upon considering the various provisions of law wrote to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate that the auction could not be made in favour of the petitioner as the actual bidders i.e. Rakesh and Dinesh had failed to deposit the amount and, therefore, a re-sale had to take place. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 2/9/2020 again asked for a comment. In the meantime, the petitioner approached the High Court with a prayer that the Plot No.353 which contained the pond be settled in his favour as he was the only bidder available after the bidders Rakesh and Dinesh had left without depositing any money which they were required to deposit after making the bid.

(3.) Sri Ram Lakhan Deobanshi, learned Standing Counsel in reply referred to the contents of counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and specially referred to the furd neelami dtd. 28/8/2019. From the furd neelami, he pointed out that there were three bidders Rakesh, Dinesh and Ram Sagar (the petitioner). He submitted that after Rakesh and Dinesh whose bids were higher than the petitioner Ram Sagar had failed to deposit the bid amount then under law, a fresh auction had to take place and allotment could not be done in favour of the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned Standing Counsel drew the attention of the Court to Rule 57 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 and therefore, for ready reference, the same is reproduced hereunder: