OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER MORADABAD DIVISION MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In realisation of an amount of Rs. 17,284.02 due against the petitioner which was realisable like arrears of land revenue petitioner's agricultural land comprised in Khata No. 352 and measuring 3.61 acres was sold in auction on 12.5.1982. Respondent No. 3-Irfan purchased the property in auction for Rs. 40,000. Petitioner filed objections under Rule 285-I of the Rules framed under U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act which is equivalent to Order XXI, Rule 90, C. P. C. Objections were filed on 9.6.1982, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad before whom objections were registered under Rule 285-I as objection No. 45 of 1982 Prem Prakash v. Kar Nirdharan Adhikari, rejected the objections on 23.4.1984. This writ petition is directed against the said order.

(2.) THE objections were general in nature. THE Commissioner decided each and every objection taken by the petitioner. THE Commissioner held that property was properly valued in auction ; that due notice to the petitioner was given as required by the relevant sections and rules i.e., Sections 279 to 286 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act ; that proclamation of sale was duly issued and published in Form 74 and that S. D. M. approved the sale proceedings which was perfectly in order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the land of the petitioner which was auctioned was comprised in two plots i.e., Plot Nos. 166 and 167 of Khata No. 352 and the amount sought to be realised could very well be realised by selling only one of the two plots. This argument is quite substantial. Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 1458 : 2006 (2) AWC 1255 (SC), Balakrishnan v. Malaiyandi Konar, has held that provisions of Order XXI, Rule 64, C.P.C. are mandatory and its violation renders the sale illegal. However, this point was not raised by the petitioner before the Commissioner. In the entire objection copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition this point was not mentioned hence it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in writ petition. Even in the grounds of writ petition this point has not been taken.