HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 23273 of 2011 Petitioner :- Smt. Krishana Kanti Shukla Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kr. Singh,S.K. Kakkar Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Shri S.K. Kakkar appearing for respondent no.4, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh appearing for respondent no.5 and Smt. Usha Srivastava appearing for respondent no.6.
With consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without calling for any counter affidavit.
It appears that the property belonging to respondent no.6 was put to auction sale in pursuance of recovery of dues of respondent no.4. At the said auction held on 30.4.2005 the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted. Thereafter the auction was confirmed and sale certificate was issued. Objection under section 285 I. of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act (referred to as the Act) was filed by respondent no.6 before Commissioner on 28.1.2006 against the auction sale dated 30.4.2005. The said objection was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated 23.2.2006 (annexure no.6 to the writ petition). The order passed by the Commissioner was challenged by respondent no.6 by filing a revision before respondent no.1 which was registered as Revision No.366/sale of 2005-06 and allowed by him vide order dated 17.1.2011 (Annexure no.9 to the writ petition). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the aforementioned order dated 17.1.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order neither contains any reason nor setting aside the auction dated 30.4.2005 as well as the order dated 23.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner nor reflects any application of mind by respondent no.1 to the facts of the case as well as materials on record. It is further submitted that an order which does not contain any reasons for it conclusions is no order in the eye of law.
Per contra, Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.5 has made a feeble attempt to justify the impugned order.
Thus the impugned order which neither contains any reason nor indicates any consideration or scrutiny of the grounds on which the auction sale as well as the order of the Commissioner rejecting the objection of respondent no.5 filed under section 285 I of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were challenged cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 passed by respondent no.1 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.1 for deciding the Revision No.366/sale of 2005-06 afresh in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order. It is further made clear that the parties have agreed that the revision may be heard and decided either by the Chairman Board of Revenue or any other member of the Board except the one who has passed the impugned order.
The petitioner and respondent no.4 undertake that they shall appear before the Chairman Board of Revenue on 2.5.2011 and file a certified copy of this order before him. On that date the respondent no.1 shall fix a date for hearing of the revision which shall not be later than two weeks from the said date.
For a period of one month or till the revision is decided whichever is earlier the parties shall maintain status quo as on date with regards to the nature and possession over the property in dispute.
A copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the parties within forty eight hours on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 25.4.2011 RU