PRAVESH KUMAR SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva auction purchaser in auction proceedings dated 17.11.2004 has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated passed by the Divisional Commissioner Allahabad dated 21.11.2005 setting aside the order of conformation of the sale of the aforesaid auction proceedings and further directing the District Magistrate, Allahabad to proceed in accordance with law. Further prayer has been made that writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner on Plot No. 4-A/4(1A/A) Hashimpur Road, Allahabad, measuring area 1877.6 Sq. yard.

(2.) Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that private respondent had failed to discharge their liabilities of payment of statutory Labour dues and hence the District Magistrate, Allahabad issued citation under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act. pursuant to recovery certificate issued by the Labour Tribunal Allahabad and Jaipur (Rajsthan) for a sum of Rs. 41,61,351.00+ 10% collection charges. It has been contended that as said statutory dues at no point of time had been paid even after issuance of recovery certificate and citation, the property/ vacant land of the private respondents was attached by the order of the District Magistrate, Allahabad dated 13.08.2004 qua property situated at 4-A Hashimpur Road, Allahabad. It has been contended that even after attachment when the statutory dues was not paid then auction has been held as contemplated under the relevant provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules pertaining to sale of immovable property. Petitioner has contended that auction proceedings took place on 17.11.2004 wherein he was highest bidder as his bid was to the tune of Rs. 70,00,000/-. Petitioner has contended that respondents filed writ petition before this Court challenging the auction dated 17.11.2004 on various grounds being writ petition No. 51297 of 2004 and said respondents were relegated by this Court for pursuing alternative remedy by preferring objection under Rule 285(I) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act, 1952. Thereafter it has been contended that objection has been filed on 16.12.2004 and it has also been contended that though the aforementioned objection has been filed on behalf of Alok Mitra and Ashok Mitra, Dipak Mitra, Manmohan Mitra and Smt. Madhurima Ghosh but non of the persons except Alok Mitra signed the vakalatnama. Petitioner has contended that no such intimation of filing objection was ever intimated to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate under this impression that no objection has been filed confirmed the sale on 21.12.2004 and sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. It has been contended that Alok Mitra filed application and affidavit for withdrawal of aforesaid objection and pursuant thereto Divisional Commissioner on 04.01.2005 dismissed the said objection filed under Section 285(I) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act 1952 as withdrawn. Petitioner has contended that in the meantime on 01.04.2005 he moved an application for getting the said property converted into free-hold. Petitioner has contended that subsequently same was converted into free-hold in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has also given detail of selling the said property to various other persons. Further petitioner has also contended that while process of execution of sale deed from one person to another person was going on application were filed by the private respondents for refund of amount in excess to the realization of the amount as mentioned in the citation on following dates. (1) 11.01.2005-Alok Mitra and Dipak Mitra (2) 28,01.2005-Manmohan Mitra and Alok Mitra (3) 07.03.2005-Dipak Mitra (4) 26.05.2005 Dipak Mitra Manmohan Mitra and Ashok Mitra and it has also been contended that based on said application moved by the private respondents 1/4th share of late Alok Mitra and Dipak Mitra was handed over to them and rest 1/4th share of Manmohan Mitra and Ashok Mitra was retained by the Tehsil authorities for adjusting the same against the other recoveries of UPFC. It has been contended that concealing this fact Dipak Mitra, Ashok Mitra, Manmohan Mitra and Madhurima Mitra moved application on 19.05.2005 before the Divisional Commissioner for recalling of the order dated 24,01.2005 on the ground that they have never instructed either late Alok Mitra or his counsel to withdraw the objection. Said application was objected to by the petitioner. Thereafter said application has been allowed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division Allahabad and confirmation order dated 21.12.2004 has been set aside by mentioning that while objection was pending before the Commissioner, confirmation of sale was void ab-initio. Commissioner has also mentioned that private respondents have averred that the land is worth Rs. 1.50 Crores whereas property is put to auction for consideration of Rs. 70 lacs and the total due against the private respondent was 50,73,851/- and hence auctioned amount is 39% excess to the actual recovery as such same is bad in the eyes of law. Details have also been given that property has rightly been valued and rightful valuation has been made. It has also been contended that subsequent purchaser has deposited the amount for sanctioning of Map and Map has been sanctioned. It has also been contended that constructions have been raised. In this background it has been contended that order passed by the Commissioner is unsustainable and private respondents are stopped in questioning the validity of the auction. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, Deepak Mitra and it has been contended that there are two companies M/s. Mitra Prakashan Ltd. and M/s. Maya Press Ltd. both companies incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956. It has been contended that companies were facing financial hardship on account of which same were closed on 23.12.2000 as a result of which there was spate of labour litigation, claiming wages, closure compensation, Gratuity etc. Respondent No. 5 has contended that two award were passed against M/s. Mitra Prakashan Ltd. and M/s. Maya Press Ltd. on 27.02.2002 and 11.02.2002 respectively and labour Court awarded Rs. 36,69,927.00 and Rs. 20,03,927 against the said two companies towards the closure compensation amounts and on the basis of said two award the Deputy Labour Commissioner forwarded the Recovery Certificate to the District Magistrate, Allahabad for the recovery of the amounts from the above-named two companies. Respondent No. 5 has contended that substantial amount of Rs. 48,99,393.00 towards workers dues and it has also been contended that Deputy Labour Commissioner disbursed Rs. 22 lacs plus one lac and ten thousand towards closure compensation to 110 workers. Respondent No. 5 has further contended that for realization of Gratuity dues proceedings were also initiated by the workers and in this respect also award was passed in case No. 1 of 2002 and 2 of 2002. Respondent No. 5 has contended that said two companies had approached the Divisional Level Udhyog Bandhu for being declared sick and in the meeting held on 26.06.2004 the Divisional Level Udhyog Bandhu prepared a rehabilitation plan. It has been contended that Divisional Commissioner Allahabad and Deputy Labour Commissioner Allahabad are the members of the Divisional Level Udhyog Bandhu and on account of resolution dated 26.06.2004 as Rehabilitation had been worked out as such recovery against two companies stood stayed/ deferred. Respondent No. 5 has contended that neither he nor his brother and sisters are borrowers or guarantors and it has also been contended that house situated at Hashimpur Road, is their ancestral property inherited from their father late K.M. Mitra and said property has no concern with the companies in question and said two companies have sufficient assets and by the auction sale of the same workers dues could have been paid. Respondent No. 5 has contended that auction proceedings were being initiated against the companies and sale proclamation was issued on 13.07.2004 alongwith the details of plant and machinery which were to be put to auction on 27.07.2004 and thereafter auction was abandoned and proposal was made to proceed against the personal property of respondent No. 5 and his brother and sister. It has been contended by the respondent No. 5 that assets and the printing press of two companies is worth more than Rs. 10 crores today that and it has been described that the amount in question many times over to cover the dues. It has also been contended that Madhurima Ghosh sister of respondent No. 5 is neither a Director nor any office bearer nor borrower nor employee of the said two companies, even then her share in the property too has been auctioned vide auction dated 17.11.2004. It has been contended that objection had been filed to the attachment order dated 03.08.2004 on 11.08.2004. It has also been categorically mentioned that the order of attachment has never been served upon the respondent No. 5 or his brothers and sisters and the same was pasted on the boundary wall of the House 4/1 Hashimpur Road, Tagore Town, Allahabad and it has also been categorically mentioned that order of attachment was never tendered to respondent nor had the deponent ever refused to accept the said order of attachment. It has further been contended that Deputy Labour Commissioner sent the certificate for Recovery to the District Administration/ authorities for the recovery of the amounts due under the award passed in case No. 1 of 2002 and 2 of 2002 and citation respectively dated 11.08.2003 28.08.2003, 30.10.2003 (two in number) were issued in the name of company for recovery of the amount under the award and in pursuance to the same respondents has contended that press of the companies had been locked and sealed by the district authorities and sale proclamation was made fixing 27.07.2004 for auction sale of the same. Respondent No. 5 has mentioned that in the morning of 16.11.2004 when he came out of his house, he found one Notice affixed on the boundary wall informing of the date 17.11.2004 when the auction of 1,877.88 sq. yds. of open land of the House No. 4/1 Hashimpur Road Tagore Town, Allahabad would take place. It has been specially contended that said sale proclamation was neither advertised in any newspaper nor circulated in public nor was there any beat of drums. Petitioner has acquired knowledge of the same when the same has been affixed on the boundary wall of his house and it has been contended that entire proceedings are manipulated for grabbing the property in question. Respondent No. 5 has further contended that he filed his objection on 16.11.2004 against the intended auction but no orders were passed on the same and on 17.11.2004 auction has been shown. It has been contended that as per sale proclamation, open land was to be sold built up area comprising but Guest House and servant quarter etc. has also been sold for paltry sum of Rs. 67 lacs. It has been contended that said auction sale was questioned before this Court and respondents were asked to file objection under Section 285(1) of U.P.Z.A. & LR. Rules and objection had been filed on 16.11.2004 and during the pendency of the aforesaid objection before Commissioner/ District Magistrate/Collector, Allahabad confirmed the auction sale. Respondent has contended that Alok Mitra without any authority withdrew the objection, as such recall application was moved before the Commissioner and the same has rightly been allowed. It has been contended that fraud has been practiced, in manipulating auction proceeding as such present writ petition warrants no interference by this Court and same is liable to be dismissed by this Court.