VED PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. NAGAR PALIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is second civil appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1979 passed by the Vth Additional Distinct Judge, Hardoi in Civil Appeal No. 24 of 1979 allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.1.1979 passed by the IVth Additional Munsif, Hardoi in Regular Suit No. 121 of 1978.

(2.) I have heard Shri P.L. Mishra for the appellant and Shri Anuj Kumar Srivastava, for the respondent.

(3.) It appears that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to use land shown by letters Aa, Ba, Sa, Da, Ka, Kha, in the site plan situated in Line Puram, Hardoi and measuring 1726 Sq. Feet and also restraining the defendant from re-auctioning the sale and for directing the defendant to execute the lease-deed in respect of the said land in favour of the plaintiff. The disputed plot is nazul land. It was auctioned by Nagar Palika, Hardoi on 23.3.1978. The plaintiff participated in the auction of the nazul land and his bid at the auction was highest at Rs. 5,000/-. The auction was concluded in favour of the plaintiff who deposited 1/4th amount at the spot. The conditions of the auction sale were read over at the time of the auction and its copy was also placed at the Notice-board at Nagar Palika, Hardoi. The entire proceedings of the auction took place in the presence of the Executive Officer and Prabhari Adhikari and other concerned officials of Nagar Palika and all the Rules and sub-rules pertaining to auction were followed. Subsequently, the Nagar Palika, Hardoi, communicated the plaintiff that the lease of the land would soon be executed according to law after getting the remaining amount deposited. The plaintiff went to the Nagar Palika Office to deposit the balance amount but the said amount was neither got deposited nor the lease-deed was executed. In the meantime one Radhey Shyam moved an application before the District Officer, Hardoi to cancel the auction and to conduct the auction again. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to get the lease-deed executed in his favour.