SMT.MEENA SINGH Vs. JANG BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Ratan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the review petitioners as well as Mr.S.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents. Through the instant review petition the petitioners have prayed to review the order dated 6.5.2010, passed by this court in writ petition No.1047 (MS) of 1988. The main ground to review the order passed by this court has been taken that this court has failed to appreciate Rule 285-H of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short U.P.Z.A.&L.R.Act). It is stated that this court has dealt with the case with the findings that once the petitioners' moved the application and offered to repay the entire dues within 30 days from the date of sale, before confirmation, the Collector was under obligation to set aside the sale, but he did not do so, rather he confirmed the auction sale.

(2.) IT is stated by them that deposition of amount is a condition precedence for acceptance of any such application for setting aside the sale, whereas in the case in hand there is no proof of deposition of amount by the petitioners. It is further stated that only moving the application to set aside the sale within time is not sufficient to set aside the sale until and unless it is followed with the deposit of the amount. In support of his submission he cited the decision of this court i.e. Ghanshyam Singh and others versus Divisional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur and others, reported in 2006 (100) RD 534. In this case this court held that the application is a consequence of the deposit and since no deposit under Rule 285-H of the Rules had been made, therefore, for this reason the application is not maintainable.

(3.) HE also raised the question on the locus of the counsel of Review petitioners with the submission that the counsel different to the counsel appeared in the writ petition cannot be permitted to argue the review petition, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following Cases:-