LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-164

STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Vs. KEDAR SINGH RAWAT

Decided On December 09, 2005
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Appellant
V/S
KEDAR SINGH RAWAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Sec tion 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-07-2002, passed by learned District Judge, Uttarkashi, in Civil Suit No. 51 of 1998.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, are that plaintiff-respondent, Kedar Singh Rawat instituted a suit before the trial court on 24-11-1998 for declaration that he is owner of the plot No. 2097 and injunction directing the appellants-defendants to deliver the possession of the land in suit, after executing deed in respect thereof as a freehold land. According to the allegations contained in the plaint, the State (appellant) issued a memorandum/notice for holding pub lic auction on 28-02-1998 in respect of certain properties which included plot No. 2097, measuring 10 sq mts. , in the town area of Uttarkashi. The plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that he author ized Sri Prakash Butola, as his agent, to participate in the auction on his be half. The bid o; the plaintiff-respondent at Rs. 76,000/-, being highest was ac cepted in respect of aforesaid plot. Ac cording to the terms of the auction, one-fourth of the said amount was im mediately deposited and rest three-fourth amount was deposited in terms of the auction on 03-04-1998 in the Government treasury. As per the terms of the auction the bid of the plaintiff-respondent was accepted by the Collec tor and the defendants-appellants were bound to transfer possession of dis puted land ai a freehold land to the plaintiff-respondent. However, on 24-10-1998, the District Magistrate/collec tor, Uttarkashi cancelled the auction on the ground that on enquiry it was found that said land of plot No. 2097 was in the possession of Agriculture Depart ment. Vide its said order, the Collector further directed that the money depos ited on behalf of the plaintiff, be re funded to him. It is this order which gave cause of action to the plaintiff, who instituted a suit for declaration, of his right and for injunction directing the defendants to deliver possession of the plot in question.