MOHAN LAL BAGLA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected writ petitions on the same cause of action challenging same impugned orders and therefore, both have been taken up together and are being decided accordingly. Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986 is being made as leading case. Facts and details as given in both writ petitions are the same and therefore, they are being collectively mentioned.

(2.) Challenge in both petitions is the auction sale dated 24.3.1979, sale certificate dated 19,2.1980 rejection of petitioner's objection under Rule 285(1) of U.P.Z.A and L. R. Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) by the Commissioner by his order dated 15.12.1979 and dismissal of their revision by the Board of Revenue by order dated 21.11.1985. In support of Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1986, Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned senior advocate appeared and in opposition, Sri V. B. Upadhyaya, learned senior advocate submitted his arguments. In Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986, Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior advocate and in opposition thereof, Sri R. N., Singh,. learned senior advocate has been heard.

(3.) Issue in the writ petition is the validity and the propriety of auction sale of three houses, i.e., house NOS, 16/20, 16/20B and 16/20C, situated in Civil Lines, Kanpur. There was a registered partnership firm in the name of M/s. Kanpur Twin Manufacturing Company. Recovery certificate dated 2.12.1977 (No. 328) for a sum of Rs. 49,118.73 pertaining to the recovery of Central Sales Tax and another recovery certificate dated 29.12.1977 (No. 341) for a sum of Rs. 23,885.31 pertaining to U. P. Sales Tax was issued in the name of aforesaid firm. Pursuant to the aforesaid recovery certificates, it is claimed that proceedings or attachment and auction of the aforesaid properties took place, in which M/s. Narendra & Company, who happens to be respondent No. 6 in both petitions, became the auction purchaser being highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 1,61,000. The auction sale was confirmed and sale certificates were also issued on 19.2.1980. Against the aforesaid auction sale objections were filed before the Commissioner under Rule 285(1) of the Rules which was rejected, upon which, the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1986 filed revision before the Board of Revenue but the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 4451 of 1986 came to this Court directly by filing writ petition but thereafter, he withdraw the same with the purpose to file revision, upon which, he also filed revision before the Board of Revenue. Both revisions have been dismissed by the Board of Revenue by orders dated 21.11.1985 as not maintainable and thus, both the order of the Board of Revenue and that of the Commissioner and the auction sale are under challenge in both writ petitions.