MOHD YAMIN Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counter affidavit and sejoinder affidavit have already been filed in this petition. Therefore, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties I proceed to decide this petition finally.

(2.) The agricultural land of the Respondent No. 2 was attached and put on auction on 23-7-1990 by the Tehsilpar, Lashkar district Hardwar as a result of failure of Respondent No. 2 to repay the loan amount, which he had borrowed from the Respondent No. 3. The highest bid of Rs. 70,200/- was offered by the Petitioners, which was accepted. Out of the bid amount Rs. 18,000/- i.e. one-fourth of the bid amount was deposited by the Petitioners in accordance with Rule 285-D of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'. The Petitioner thereafter is said to have deposited the balance of purchase money in terms of Rule 285-E of the rules. The Respondent No. 2, according to the Petitioners, did not deposit the amount within the time specified under the rules. The Respondent No. 2 is said to have made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 19-8-1990. The application was not found tenable and the auction was confirmed on 15-12-1990. The Respondent No. 2 being aggrieved by the auction sale and its confirmation is said to have filed an appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, on 5-2-91 as not maintainable. The Respondent No. 2 is said to have filed objections also before the Respondent no 1 on 24-1-1991 under Rule 285-1 of the rules. These objections are said to have been filed beyond time but the the Respondent No. 1 condoned the delay in filing the objections and set aside the auction sale dated 23-7-1990 as also the confirmation of the said sale dated 15-12-1990 by his order dated 12-11-1991.

(3.) The Petitioners further State that they have deposited the entire sum of auction money as also the amount of Rs. 8000/- for registration and stamps. The order of the Respondent No. 1 was bad and illegal, therefore, they have a right to get the land, which they have purchased at the auction sale. The said sale cannot be annulled or set aside by the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 is said to have not raised any objection with regard to non-compliance of Rule 285-C or 28S-H of the rules. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order of the Respondent No. 1 dated 12-11-1991 and by a writ of mandamus a direction is sought to the Collector, Hardwar to confirm the auction sale and issue sale certificate in favour of the Petitioners.