ASMA KHATOON Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Devendra Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4, the auction purchaser. The petitioner in the title of the writ petition has described herself as daughter of Mohd. Umar even though she is married and is wife of respondent No.5, Mehfooz Ahmad. (In the entire writ petition also it has nowhere been stated that the petitioner is wife of respondent No.5) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the description is purely mala fide.

(2.) Respondent No.5, Mefooz Ahmad, husband of petitioner and two others took loan of more than Rs.3 lacs from Minority Financial Development Corporation on an extremely concessional rate of interest i.e. 3% per year. For recovery of the loan proceedings were initiated against respondent No.5. A house belonging to him was attached on 16.04.2001 and auctioned on 11.09.2001. Respondent No.4, Smt. Saliha Begum was the highest bidder, her bid being Rs.1.25 lacs, accordingly it was sold to her. Respondent No.5, Mehfooz Ahmad in order to frustrate the recovery proceedings, after the attachment, sold the house in dispute to his wife petitioner on 31.05.2001. Mefooz Ahmad also challenged the recovery proceedings and filed Misc. Bench No.4915 of 2001, which was disposed of on 11.10.2001 permitting him to file representation before the District Magistrate. The petitioner after about six months of the auction filed objections against the auction under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, which was registered as Appeal No.397 of 1993 on the file of Commissioner, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda along with delay condonation application. In the said application/ appeal also petitioner described herself as daughter of Mohd. Umar.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioner is that she was not heard. The Commissioner through order dated 19.03.2002 rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by time having been filed on 11.02.2002 and the limitation being only of 30 days. However, it was observed that petitioner could approach the civil court. Against the said order, petitioner filed Revision No.1972 (LR) of 2005-06 before the Board of Revenue, Lucknow. The Board of Revenue dismissed the revision on merit on 15.02.2007, hence this writ petition.