ARVIND KUMAR Vs. S D O PHULPUR AZAMGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Shukla, Member. This reference has been made by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division in Revision No. 10/a-93. The fact of the case briefly stated are that the land belonging to the father of the revisionist was auctioned on 2- 12-92 for the recovery of bank dues. The bid of Rs. 60,000 by the revisionist was highest. He deposited 1/4 amount on the same day and the remaining amount was deposited on 14-12-92 within the prescribed period. Meanwhile, the Opposite Parties No. 3 to 10 in the revision moved an application dated 11-12-92 for cancelling the auction due to various irregularities mentioned in their application. The SDO vide his order dated 18-12-92 cancelled the auction. The revisionists application dated 21-12- 1992 to revoke the order dated 18-12-1992 was also rejected by the SDO on 22-12-92. The revisionist thereupon filed this revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide his order dated 12-7-94 has made a recommendation for cancelling the orders dated 18-12-92 and 22-12-1992 on the ground that after the auction the SDO had no jurisdiction to hear objections against it and only the Commissioner was empowered to do so.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. The learned Counsel for the revisionist supporting the reference has contended that since the auction money was deposited within the prescribed time, the SDO had no option left but to confirmed the sale as provided in Rule 295-J of the UPZA and LR Rules. Moreover, since no application under Rule 285-H or 285-I was made, the objection of the opposite parties was barred by Rule 285-K and the only remedy for them was to approach the Civil Court. In support of this contention the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in Hari Singh v. State of U. P. , 1993 (11) LCD 946. Para-8 of the judgment in this case is reproduced below: "rule 285-J provides that if no such application as mentioned in Rule 295-H or Rule-I has been made after the expiry of thirty days from the date of sale, or if such application has been made and has been rejected by the Collector or the Commissioner, then the Collector shall pass an order confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land in question by the bidder has not been done in contravention of the provisions of Section 154. This rule clearly goes to show that once the objection made by the objector has been dismissed or if no such objection has been made then the Collector has to confirm the sale if he is satisfied that the provisions of Section 154 have not been contravened. "

(3.) FROM the two rulings cited above it is clear that the right of the Collector to reject the highest bid without notice to the bidder is not affected by Rule 285-J and the contention that if no application under Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I has been made within the prescribed time the Collector cannot cancel the auction is not tenable. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist that these rulings are against the Rules is not correct. The Rules do not prohibit the Collector from cancelling the auction as per the terms and conditions of the auction if he finds that the auction was collusive or vitiated by material irregularities. As observed by the learned Judge in the case of Raghunandan Prasad. The stage of an application under Rule 285-H or 285-I, and the confirmation of sale thereafter, arises only after the acceptance of highest bid. The rejection of the highest bid by the Collector even before the filing of applications under Rule 285-H or 285-I is, therefor, not barred by Rule 285-J. The ruling cited by learned Counsel for the revisionist in respect of Rule 285-J is not applicable to cases relating to non acceptance or rejection of the highest bid by the Collector. Rule 285-J is regarding the confirmation of the sale and it does not by implication take away the power of the Collector to reject the highest bide for any valid reason prior to its acceptance. Moreover, it is debatable whether the use of word "shall" in Rule 285-J is mandatory or directory. But this is not the point at issue in this case.