DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Shri K.P. Singh, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5.

(2.) The counsel for respondent No. 6 has refused to take notice of the case and an endorsement to that effect has been made by the counsel for the petitioner on the notice which was sent to the counsel for respondent No. 6. The notice has been handed over by the counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record.

(3.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 6 is the proprietor of M/s. Dev Dutt Engineering Allahabad. On a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax), Satna, Madhya Pradesh for recovery of sales tax due to respondent No. 6 of approximately Rs. 5,36,321/- a recovery citation was issued against respondent No. 6. In pursuance to the said recovery citation Plot No. 262 was put up for auction. Respondent No. 5 claims that an agreement to sale regarding the aforesaid plot was executed in its favour by Rip Daman Agarwal, the father and predecessor of respondent No. 6. In the auction proceedings held on 24.10.1998, the bid of the petitioner was accepted. Before the confirmation of the auction, respondent No. 5 filed objections on 3.11.1998, but the auction was confirmed on 29.11.1998 and consequently a deed of conveyance was executed in favour of the petitioner. The objections were filed by respondent No. 5 under Rule 285-I of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1952') for setting aside the sale. The Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as, 'Commissioner') vide his order dated 5.2.2008 has allowed the objections of respondent No. 5 and has cancelled the auction dated 24.10.1998 as well as confirmation dated 29.11.1998 and the deed of conveyance. The consequential revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Board of Revenue, U.P. at Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as, 'Board of Revenue') vide its order dated 18.7.2014. The order dated 5.2.2008 passed by the Commissioner and the order dated 18.7.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue have been challenged in the present writ petition.