LAKSHMI NARAYAN Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition prays that the order passed by the commissioner on 9 -6 -1966 be quashed. By this order the Commissioner rejected the Petitioner's objection under Rule 285 -I of the rules framed under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Commissioner stated that the Petitioners application is rejected and the sale is confirmed.

(2.) The Petitioner's case was that one Kamla Pati Tripathi, his elder brother, had taken loan from the Govt. and that he alone was the borrower although joint family property was hypothecated as security. Kamla Pati Tripathi did not repay the loan and the amount of loan is being recovered as arrears of land revenue. In recovery proceedings the share of the Petitioner could not be lawfully sold. The Respondent had sold the joint family property and not merely the share of Kamla Pati Tripathi. On this objection the Commissioner on 10 -8 -1965 wrote and addressed a letter to the Collector saying that in a joint holding the interest of a, co -tenure -holder extends to every inch of the common land, in the absence of a division between the co -tenants and that specific lots of a holding cannot be held to being to one or more of them only and it cannot be sold as such. He also observed that one third share of the borrower in the entire land falling to his share should be sold for realising the dues instead of selling specific plots. The Petitioner says that this order was communicated to him, though this fact is not admitted by the other side. After some further correspondence the Commissioner in his impugned order held that on a reconsideration of the facts he accepted the view of the D.G.G. and the report of the A.S.D.O. and superceded the order dated 10 -8 -1965.

(3.) It appears that the Commissioner was at first inclined to accept the Petitioner's contention that Kamla Pati Tripathi alone was the borrower and his one third share alone could be auctioned. Later on he changed his opinion. The impugned order does not give any reasons. It does not deal with the Petitioners objections nor record findings on any of the points that arose for his determination. An objection under Rule 285 -1 of the Rules has to be disposed of judicially on evidence and by an order recording findings on the relevant points. The impugned order does not satisfy these requirements. The Commissioner seems to have proceeded on the footing that the objection under Rule 285 -1 could be disposed of administratively. The Commissioner was in error in approaching the case from this viewpoint. He ought to have, decided the objections on their merits and in accordance with the requirements of Rule 285 -I.