MALKAN SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case has been listed in the cause list dated 25.5.2009, which is to be taken after the regular cases, listed in the cause list, under the heading 'thereafter'. THE thereafter cause list is to be generally known as 'weekly cause list' and the same has been taken-up on Monday and has been revised on Tuesday. When the case was taken-up in the second round in the revised list on Tuesday, Mr. D.P. Dwivedi requested the Court for conducting the case. As counsel for the opposite parties was not present and the matter was of 2002, he was directed to inform the counsel for the opposite parties that the case will be taken-up today. In compliance thereof, he has informed in writing the counsel for the opposite parties. He has also filed the notice of service, which is taken on record. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has taken loan from the bank, but on account of his financial crunch, he could not re-pay the amount and as such, recovery proceedings were initiated and in pursuance thereof, mortgage property of the petitioner was put to auction. In the said auction, the opposite party No.2 was purchased the plot in question. After confirmation of sale, the petitioner filed an application under Section 285 (I) of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules [hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity] before the Commissioner alongwith an application for condonation of delay. On 8.5.1996, by a detailed order, the Commissioner set aside the auction sale dated 11.9.1995 which was confirmed on 20.9.1995. In pursuance of the order dated 8.5.1996, the petitioner deposited Rs.1,68,000/-with the Tehsil Authorities. On 3.7.1996, revision was filed by the opposite party No.2 which was allowed on 12.1.1998 and set aside the order dated 8.5.1996 passed by the Commissioner. Petitioners filed review application which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the Commissioner allowed the objections filed by them inter alia on the ground that the procedure prescribed under the relevant rules have been violated insofar as before issuance of the citation, valuation of the property has not been mentioned in the said sale proclamation. He further submits that after the auction being set aside by the Commissioner, the petitioners deposited the amount in question, as directed by him. His further submission is that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner. Lastly he submitted that the amount so deposited by the petitioners and the auction purchaser is lying with the State Government. Admittedly, on perusal of the proclamation issued by the Tehsil Authorities, it is evident that the valuation has not been mentioned, as required under Rule 285 of the Rules. This Court, in the case of M/s. Swadeshi Polytex Limited Versus Board of Revenue and others [2006 (24) LCD 1] has specifically held that the rules so framed in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules are mandatory in nature and they are strictly to be adhered to. It is incumbent upon the authorities to mention the valuation of the property, which is to be auctioned and as such, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue is not tenable, which are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 12.1.1998 and 25.9.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue are set aside.