SHYAM SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE, UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jyotish Kumar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner had taken loan from the State Bank of India Auraia in the year 1981. Due to non-payment of the amount advanced to the petitioner, recovery proceeding was initiated and auction sale has taken place in respect to the petitioner's plot on 22/10/1986 and 12/2/1987. Petitioner was advised to file a civil suit No. 191 of 1987 for decree of permanent injunction as well as for possession impleading auction purchasers, State of U.P. and State Bank of India as defendants. In the aforementioned civil suit, an amendment application dtd. 28/3/1998 (146 Ka-2) was filed for adding the relief to the effect that both the sale deed executed in favour of auction purchaser should be declared void. The Civil Judge vide order dtd. 18/8/1999 rejected the amendment application on the ground that sale deed are not admissible in evidence so there is no need to declare the sale deed as void. Petitioner filed another amendment application (161-Ka) which was rejected by the Civil Judge vide order dtd. 18/1/2005 with observation that Civil Court is not competent to hold the attachment/ auction sale as null and void. Petitioner was further advised to file objection under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules accordingly objection under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules along with application under Sec. 5 of Indian Limitation Act was filed on behalf of petitioner before the Commissioner Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was registered as objection No. 8 of 2005 under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules and the same was heard by respondent No. 2, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur. The aforementioned objection was rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dtd. 16/11/2005 recording finding of fact that proceeding under Rule 285-I of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules has been initiated after 19 years from the date of auction dtd. 29/9/1986 although petitioner was fully aware about the auction took place on 29/9/1986. Petitioner challenged the order dtd. 16/11/2005 before the respondent No. 1, Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow which was registered as revision No. 70 (L.R.) 2005-06. Learned Member Board of Revenue vide order dtd. 21/2/2006 dismissed the revision filed by petitioner. Hence this writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner for the following reliefs :

(3.) This Court vide order dtd. 22/5/2006 issued notice to respondent No. 3 but no interim order was granted by this Court in the aforementioned revision.