SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Meerut Division, Meerut dated 4th February, 2005, whereby appeal no. 11 of 1989-90 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-'1' to the writ petition.

(2.) In short, the brief facts of the present case are that against the sales tax recovery of Rs.39,422=91, which was due against the firm M/s. Badiumal Jagmundar Das & M/s. Durga Brick Fields of which Jagmundar Das was the partner having half share in the land in question, his share of land was put for auction on 9th August, 1989 after completing all legal formalities.

(3.) In the auction notice, the estimated price of the land in auction was shown as Rs.60,000/- that has been taken place on 9th August, 1989. Six bidders, including the present petitioner participated and the petitioner's bid of Rs.59,000/- was found to be highest and the petitioner deposited one fourth amount of the bid on the date of auction and remaining three fourth was to be deposited within fifteen days. Since no application was filed within thirty days by Jagmundar Das for setting aside the auction sale as contemplated under Rule 285 (H) or 285 (I) of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules (In short 'the Rules'), the auction became final, as asserted by the petitioner in the writ petition. The respondent no. 5, namely Pramod Kumar Jain filed an application claiming himself to be nephew of Jagmindar Das on 8th September, 1989 itself stating therein that the auction was not properly made and was not in accordance with law and that the price which has been passed in the aforesaid auction is not a just price, therefore the same be set aside. The Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Meerut directed the respondent no. 5 to deposit Rs.59,000/- plus five per cent. The respondent no. 5 deposited Rs.61,950/- on 28th September, 1989. An application dated 30th September, 1989 was filed by the petitioner on 3rd October, 1989 stating therein that since he is the highest bidder in the aforesaid public auction and the defaulter Jagmundar Das has not filed any application or objection under Rule 285 (H) of 'the Rules', therefore the application filed by third party i.e. Respondent no. 5 Pramod Kumar Jain was not maintainable and also the respondent no. 5 has not complied with the requirement of Rule 285 (H) of 'the Rules', thus the petitioner made a request that the auction dated 9th August, 1989 be confirmed. The respondent no. 4, namely, Additional District Magistrate (F/R), Meerut vide its order dated 22nd December, 1989 set aside the auction dated 9th August, 1989 and directed for fresh auction. The petitioner preferred revision against the order dated 22nd December, 1989, which was subsequently converted into an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority, namely Additional Commissioner (Administration), Meerut vide its order dated 15th June, 1990 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter respondent no.5 Pramod Kumar Jain filed writ petition before this Court being civil misc. writ petition no. 14908 of 1990 against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 15th June, 1990. This Court while allowing the writ petition filed by Pramod Kumar Jain vide order dated 24th May, 2004 held that