Baldeo @ Baldeva And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3880 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 14.03.2011
 
Delivered on 18.08.2011
 
Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 45853 of 2005
 

 
Petitioner :- Baldeo @ Baldeva And Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- C.K. Jha
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Dr.S.B.Maurya,Mrs. Mamta Maurya
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by six petitioners (5 are brothers, son of deceased Ram Bahadur who is also impleaded as petitioners No.2) assailing order dated 27th September, 2002 passed by Commissioner, Bareilly Region, Bareilly upholding auction pursuant to recovery proceedings initiated by the Revenue Authorities for recovering dues of Panjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as "Bank") and the order dated 26th July, 2004 passed by the Board of Revenue rejecting revision.

2. It is said that WIMCO Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Company") had sponsored a scheme for plantation of poplar plant in Bareilly Region and other areas. The farmers were supplied plants by or at the instance of Company. The Bank also advanced loan to the concerned farmers on the recommendation of the Company, who had shown inclination in the aforesaid scheme i.e. plantation of poplar plants.

3. The Bank, in furtherance of the aforesaid scheme, on the recommendation of Company, advanced loan to the petitioners to the tune of Rs.72,500/-, payable in 5 yearly instalments from 1988 to 1992. It is said that the loan amount was not furnished directly to the petitioners rather it was paid to Company which supplied poplar plants to petitioners for plantation. The Company subsequently declined to purchase plants on the ground that the same were not fully grown up, as a result whereof petitioners failed to repay loan amount to the Bank.

4. The bank issued recovery certificate to recover outstanding dues as arrears of land revenue. On 9th January, 1996, Revenue authorities attached plots No.289 (area 1.135 hectare) and 11 (area 3.218 hectare). The petitioners filed writ petition No.8014 of 1996 challenging recovery certificate dated 01.11.1995. It was disposed of vide judgment dated 1.3.1996 permitting petitioners to deposit Rs.50,000/- within a month and remaining amount in five equal installments subject whereto recovery proceedings were stayed. The petitioners still failed to pay the amount. The auction proceedings were initiated by revenue authorities and the agricultural land in Gata No.11 (area 3.218 situated at Village Sone Hega Nagla, Tehsil Aonla, Bareilly) was auctioned for Rs.2,60,000 on 27.01.1997. The petitioners filed objection No.34/94 before Commissioner, Bareilly which was dismissed on 27.09.2002. The revision thereagainst has been dismissed by another impugned order dated 26.7.2004.

5. On behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 a counter affidavit sworn by Sri Vinit Kumar Srivastava, Tehsildar Aonla,Bareilly has been filed. It is said that loan application was submitted by petitioners on 23.04.1988 for poplar cultivation under the scheme known as NABARD's Farm Forestry Scheme, which was a project approved by NABARD and sponsored by the Company commonly known as "WIMCO NABARD Project". The application proposed planting of 1400 trees @ Rs.120.70 and therefore a loan amount of Rs.1,68,980/- was applied for against mortgage of agricultural land of the petitioners measuring about 10.75 acres. The application was filed by petitioner No.1 Baldev and Sri Ram Bahadur father of petitioners 3 to 7. The Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.1,68,980/-. The first installment was disbursed on 28th December, 1988 while last installment was disbursed on 22.7.1992. It was liable for repayment within 8 years.

6. Upto 22nd July, 1992 a sum of Rs.1,25,200/- was disbursed but further installment was not given since the petitioners were not respecting agreement between the parties. During 1992-93, trees were cut down and sold to private party. The Bank issued notice for depositing sale proceeds against loan amount but the petitioners failed. A notice was issued by the Bank on 7th September, 1994 which remained unheeded. The Company informed the Bank vide letter dated 15.10.1993 that petitioners had disposed off timber to private parties and have committed breach of contract. In the circumstances, recovery certificate was issued by the Bank on 26.12.1994 for Rs.2,70,921.11 with interest upto 22.11.1994. On 01.11.1995 a revised recovery certificate was issued for Rs.2,84,697/- under U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). The petitioners sought indulgence of this Court by according to pay outstanding dues in instalments but despite this Court's judgment dated 1.3.1996, failed to comply the same. Plot No.11 was auctioned on 27.01.1997 for Rs.2,60,000/- whereagainst petitioners' objection was rejected by Commissioner on 27.9.2002.

7. Before the said auction and in furtherance of coercive method for recovery of outstanding dues, one of the petitioners also was taken into custody on 28.12.1995 and kept in civil prison yet no amount was paid. Thereafter the mortgaged property was attached on 9.01.1996 and sale proclamation was issued on 30.01.1996 fixing date of auction as 9.03.1996. The auction however could not proceed due to the judgment dated 1.03.1996 of this Court in writ petition No.8014/96 wherein a conditional order for payment of outstanding dues by petitioners in instalments was passed but even that was not complied with. Thereafter sale proclamation was issued on 01.6.1996 fixing 01.7.1996 as the date for auction. No auctioneer appeared to participate in the auction and it was postponed to 6.8.1996 whereon also it was adjourned and that situation continued upto 5th December, 1996. Thereafter on 26.12.1996 sale proclamation was issued and 27.01.1997 was fixed for auction on which date it actually took place. The highest bid received was that of respondent No.5 for plot No.11 measuring 3.218 hectare which was for Rs.2,60,000/-. The petitioners not only failed to pay the amount but their objections have also been rejected by the Commissioner on 27.9.2002. The auction purchaser deposited Rs.2,60,000/- and the auction was approved by Sub Divisional Officer, Aaola on 4.06.2003. Thereafter the petitioners' revision against the order dated 27.9.2002 was also rejected on 26.7.2004.

8. It is said that the category of the petitioners' land was lowest i.e. "Bhood Awwal Khaki" in the revenue records. Its circle rate in 1997 was Rs.35,000/- per Bigha which comes to 1.4 lacs per hectare. Hence market value of the land in the aforesaid auction was not more than Rs.60,000/-, but the auction actually made for Rs.2,60,000/- which was much more than market value. It thus cannot be said an inadequate consideration for the said piece of land.

9. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.5. He had reiterated with respect to the auction proceedings, the same facts as stated in the counter affidavit of respondents No.1 to 4. He has further pleaded that Collector Bareilly confirmed the sale on 04.6.2003 whereafter respondent No.5 deposited the bid amount and the sale deed was executed in favour of respondent No.5 on 10.12.2003. Thereafter mutation in the revenue record has also been carried out in favour of respondent No.5 on 27.12.2004. The respondent No.5 has taken possession of land in question and has planted 2500 guava fruit plants on the land in question.

10. The petitioners have challenged auction proceedings on the ground that no knowledge of the date of auction was given to them. The Auction Officer appointed by Deputy collector was not authorized. No bid money was paid in time. Therefore the entire auction proceedings are illegal and contrary to law.

11. The respondents refuting the said contentions have justified the auction and contended that the same has been made in accordance with law.

12. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has also disputed the manner in which alleged loan amount was disbursed and also the liability of petitioners vis a vis the said amount but assailing auction proceedings, he has basically raised two issues which in my view needs be answered:

(i) Whether the auction could be held only by Collector and in the case in hand it has been held illegally?

(ii) Whether payment of three forth of the amount of auction was made in time i.e. within 15 days and if not, would it vitiate the entire auction?

13. Section 279 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "1950 Act") lays down various processes following whereto recovery of an amount, recoverable as arrears of land revenue, can be made. Sub section 1(d), (e) and (f) of Section 279 provides that the amount can be recovered:

(d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due;

(e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the arrear is due;

(f) by attachment and sale of other immovable property of the defaulter.

14. The proceeding for attachment, lease and sale of holding, against which an arrears is due and other property of the defaulter is provided in Sections 284 and 286 of 1950 Act. The procedure for auction of immoveable property is contained in U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "1952 Rules") and Rules 281 to 286 deals therewith.

15. Rule 281(2) of 1952 Rules provides that process for sale of holding under Section 284 of 1950 Act and of other immovable property under Section 286 of 1950 Act shall be issued by the Collector. In respect to the procedure of sale, Rules 285-A, 285-D, 285-E, 285-G, 285-H and 285-I provides as under:

"285-A. Every sale under Sections 284 and 286 shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. No such sale shall take place on a Sunday or other gazetted holiday or until after the expiration of at least thirty days from the date on which the proclamation under Rule 282 was issued.

285-D. The person declared to be the purchaser shall be required to deposit immediately twenty-five per cent of the amount of this bid, and in default of such deposit the land shall forthwith be again put up and sold and such person shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and any deficiency of price which may occur on the re-sale which may be recovered from him by the Collector as if same were an arrear of land revenue.

285-E. The full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the purchaser on or before the fifteenth day from the date of the sale at the district treasury or any sub-treasury and in case of default the deposit, after the expenses of sale have been defrayed therefrom, shall be forfeited to Government and the property shall be re-sold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently sold.

285-G. No sale after postponement under Rule 285-A, 285-D or 285-E in default of payment of the purchase money shall be made until a fresh proclamation has been issued as prescribed for the original sale.

285-H. (1) Any person whose holding or other immovable property has been sold under the Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of sale, apply to have the sale set aside on his depositing in the Collector's office-

(a) for payment to the purchaser, a sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money; and

(b) for payment on account of the arrear, the amount specified in the proclamation in Z.A. Form 74 as that for the recovery of which the sale was ordered, less any amount which may, since the date of such proclamation of sale, have been paid on that account; and

(c) the costs of the sale.

On the making of such deposit, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale :

Provided that if a person applied under Rule 258-I to set aside such sale he shall not be entitled to make an application under this rule.

285-I (I) At any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, application may be made to the Commissioner to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting it; but no sale shall be set aside on such ground unless the applicant proves to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that he has sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or mistake.

(ii) Deleted

(iii) The order of the Commissioner passed under this rule shall be final."

16. Referring to Rule 285(A), learned counsel for the petitioner contended that auction could have been made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. He pointed out that in the present case, it is evident from the counter affidavit that proclamation of sale was issued by Deputy Collector, Aonla and Tehsildar, Aonla and auction was made by Naib Tahsildar, which is not consistent with the procedure prescribed in the statute and therefore, the entire proceedings are illegal.

17. It would be appropriate to consider the aforesaid submission in the light of the definition of "Collector" in 1950 Act. The statute initially enacted contain the definition of Collector under Section 3(4) of 1950 Act as under:

"Collector" includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of a Collector under this Act.

18. This definition of Collector underwent an amendment in 1974 and after the amendment it reads as under:

"Collector" means an officer appointed as Collector under the provisions of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, and includes an Assistant Collector of the first class empowered by the State Government by a notification in the Gazette to discharge all or any of the functions of Collector."

(Words in bold in paras 16 & 17 denotes the difference)

19. Under Section 3(27) it is provided that the words and expressions, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, revenue "mahal", Collector, Assistant Collector, Assistant Collector-in-charge of sub-division, Commissioner, Board, Tahsildar and minor, not defined in Act, 1950 and used in the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as "1901 Act") shall have the meaning assigned to them in that Act.

20. The Collector is appointed under Section 14 of 1901 Act. It reads as under:

"The State Government shall appoint in each district an officer who shall be Collector of the district and who shall throughout his district, exercise all the powers and discharge his duties by this Act or any other law for the time being in force. The term includes a Deputy Commissioner as well as the Superintendent of Dehra Dun"

21. Considering the old definition of Collector, this Court in Paras Nath Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1960 ALJ 549 held that under Section 223 of 1901 Act, powers of a Collector can be conferred on an Assistant Collector of First Class. The powers of a Collector cannot be conferred on a 'Tahsildar' since he as such is not an Assistant Collector of First Class.

22. This decision of Paras Nath Singh (supra) has been affirmed in intra court appeal by the Division Bench in State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Paraspati Gram Samaj, 1965 RD 379.

23. Recently a Division Bench of this Court in M/s R.D.Cements Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector/D.M., Lucknow, 2010(111) RD 211 has said:

"Accordingly giving harmonious construction to provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 3 read with Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the auction and sale proceeding may be conducted either by the Collector himself or the Assistant Collector of First Class duly appointed by the Collector and no other authority."

"The Collector or Assistant Collector cannot delegate power to Naib Tahsildar to hold the auction and sale proceeding under Rule 285-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules."

24. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5, however, has relied on a notification dated 7th January, 1964 in his written argument and in para 8 thereof says that by notification No.3937/1-A-1165(1)/54 dated 7th January, 1964 all Tahsildars were appointed as Assistant Collector, First Class. It further says that by another notification No.3937(1)/JA-1166(1)/54 all Assistant Collector First Class appointed under the aforesaid notification have been empowered to discharge all functions of Collector under Section 122-B of Act 1950.

25. Though copies of the aforesaid notifications have not been placed on record but assuming what is stated therein correct, firstly, it cannot be said that the said notification authorises a Naib Tahsildar to conduct auction sale or even an Assistant Collector First Class who is not especially empowered by the Collector to do so can hold auction under Rule 285-A of 1952 Rules. It is evident that unless authorised by Collector, an Assistant Collector also cannot hold auction. It is different thing, if in the matter of appointment of Collector under 1901 Act, the State Government includes an Assistant Collector First Class also but that is not sufficient to authorise him to further authorise anyone else to hold auction. Moreover, the aforesaid notification at the best are in reference to Section 122-B and therefore would not help the respondents in the matter of auction governed by Section 284 read with Rule 285A of the Rules.

26. Justice M.C.Desai in Paras Nath Singh (supra) while considering Section 223 of 1901 Act said that Tahsildar is a Revenue Officer appointed under Act 1901, Section 17. The Assistant Collector First Class or Second Class is a different officer appointed by the State Government under the said Act. A Tehsildar as such is not an Assistant Collector either of Ist Class or 2nd Class. Section 224 of Act 1901 though empowers the State Government to confer upon any Tehsildar all or any powers of the Assistant Collector Second Class but not with those of Assistant Collector First Class. The Collector is another Revenue Officer appointed by the Government under 1901 Act. Section 223 empowers the State Government to confer upon any Assistant Collector of First Class all or any of the powers of the Collector. In exercise of this powers the State Government conferred power of a Collector upon all Assistant Collector First Class. When State Government in its wisdom conferred powers of Assistant Collector upon all Assistant Collector of First Class, it would not mean that a Tahsildar can claim to possess power of a Collector when authorises to discharge functions of Assistant Collector of Ist Class. All the officers namely Assistant Collector First Class, Second Class, Tahsildar are different officers in their own capacity. When Tahsildar invested with a power of Assistant Collector, he still remain a Tahsildar and does not become an Assistant Collector. Same is the position when an Assistant Collector First Class is conferred power of a Collector, he himself would not be a Collector as such.

27. My attention is drawn to another decision of Hon'ble Single Judge's judgment in Jagat Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1994 ACJ 608 wherein a circular of Board of Revenue issued on 17th January, 1976 has been considered conferring power upon Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer to perform functions of Collector. The reliance is not correct. It shows that in respect to the auction under Section 286 of 1950 Act, Board of Revenue authorised Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer to conduct auction proceedings subject to condition that confirmation of sale shall be done by Collector. This Court held that the circular of Board of Revenue would not validate an auction conducted under Section 284 of 1950 Act where the procedure under Rules 285-A to 285-I shall apply. The Court said:

"A perusal of this notification goes to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector has only been authorised by this notification to conduct the auction proceedings under Section 286 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act subject to the condition that confirmation of sale shall be done by the collector. The power of the Collector, when he acts under Section 284 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has not been conferred upon the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer by this notification. As seen in the earlier part of this judgment the sale in the present case has taken place under the provisions of Section 284 of the Act and not under Section 286. Therefore this notification dated 17.1.1976 will not apply to the facts of the present case. Moreover, there is another ground on the basis of which it cannot be said that the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer has been invested with the power to confirm the sale. The last sentence of the notification dated 17-1-76 clearly goes to show that the power of conducting sale proceedings under Section 286 of the Act has been conferred upon the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer with the condition that confirmation of sale shall be done by the Collector. It means that only a power to auction the property or conduct the sale has been given to the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer and not a power to confirm the sale which has been given to the Collector under the provisions of Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms rules. Therefore this notification does not, in any way, confer powers on the Assistant Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, holding the charge of a sub-division, to confirm the sale. Power to confirm the sale still vests with the Collector. It is the settled view that a person who has purchased the property in auction sale has a right to approach the Court but a person who has not derived any title in the auction sale cannot come to the Court for enforcing his rights. Unless a right is conferred on the person that right cannot be got enforced by him by means of writ petition or by suit. The basis on the title on which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition is not there. Therefore the petitioner cannot complain that the Collector had no power to pass orders for re-auction of the property in dispute."

28. Moreover, in my view, neither the Act nor the Rules in question confer power upon Board of Revenue to authorise Assistant Collector in such matter as this power is vested with the State Government.

29. In Ram Awadh Tiwari Vs. Sudarshan Tiwari & Ors., 2008 (105) RD 322 this question attracted this Court's attention specifically. In exercise of power under Section 3(4) of 1950 Act, a notification was issued on 11th June, 1953 to the following effect:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (4) of section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [(Act 1 of (1951)], the Governor is pleased to empower all the Sub-Divisional Officers in Uttar Pradesh except those in the districts of Almora, Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur to discharge all the functions of a "Collector under the said Act."

30. Another notification was issued on 5th December, 1968 whereunder Sub Divisional Officers were empowered to exercise all powers of Collector under 1951 Act except the power under Section 198 of the said Act. Another notification under Section 3(4) of 1950 Act was issued on 17th January, 1976 to the following effect:

"In exercise of the powers under clause (4) of section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951), the Governor is pleased to empower all the Assistant Collectors of the First Class, who are Incharge of the sub-division, to discharge the functions of a "Collector" under Section 286 of the said Act in respect of any holding of a defaulter of which he is a Bhumidhar. Sirdar or Assami, subject to the condition that such sales are approved by the Collector."

31. It was contended in Ram Awadh Tiwari (Supra) that in view of aforesaid notifications, a Sub Divisional Officer and Assistant Collector can exercise all the powers of Collector including that of auction.

32. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court observed that Deputy Collector has been conferred power of Collector under 1950 Act except that of Section 198 but Assistant Collector, who is Incharge of the Division has been authorised to exercise functions of Collector under Section 286 but the power of confirmation of sale still continued to be vested in Collector.

33. Even if, what has been said above, is accepted, can it be said that Rule 285-A has been followed in the present case. The Commissioner himself has observed in the appellate order dated 27th September, 2002 as under:

^^uhyke i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd uk;c rglhynkj fljkSyh dks fnukad 30-1-96 dks mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk uhkyke vf/kdkjh fu;qDr fd;k x;k gS] vr% iqu% uhyke vf/kdkjh dh fu;qfDr dh tkuk vko';d ugha FkkA**

34. It shows that for the purpose of auction, Naib Tahsildar was authorised. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that this action and authorization of Naib Tahsildar satisfy the requirement of Rule 285-A of 1952 Rules which contemplates auction either by Collector or an Assistant Collector authorised in this behalf by him. In no manner Assistant Collector would include a Naib Tehsildar. Therefore the auction conducted on 27th January, 1997 was evidently not in conformity with Rule 285-A of 1952 Rules.

35. The next question is whether Rule 285-A was followed or not which contemplates a notice period of 30 days between the date of issuance of the sale proclamation and the date of auction.

36. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 it is said that property in question was attached on 9th January, 1996 by issuing Z.A. Form 73-73D. The said proclamation was issued on Z.A. Form 74 on 30th January, 1996 fixing 9th March, 1996. No auction took place on 9th March, 1996 due to the order dated 1st March, 1996 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8014 of 1996. Thereafter fresh sale proclamation was issued on 1st June, 1996 fixing 1st July, 1996. The auction was postponed and the next date fixed on 6th August, 1996. Again it was postponed. It is said that ultimately a fresh sale proclamation was issued on 26th December, 1996 fixing 27th January, 1997. The sale proclamation was duly served upon the defaulters namely the petitioners and auction was held on 27th January, 1997. Annexure C.A.3 to the counter affidavit shows that sale proclamation though issued on 26th December, 1996 but the endorsement with regard to service is dated 23rd January, 1997/27th January, 1997. The auction was also held on 27th January, 1997. Whether it can be said that Rule 285-A has been observed in the case in hand or not. The Apex Court has considered this issue in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. & Others, 2009 (107) RD 22 and in para 14 of the judgment relying on an another decision in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar 2004 (56) ALR 115 (SC) the Apex Court held that such an auction would be illegal and inconsistent with the procedure prescribed in Rule 285 and 285-A.

37. In Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. (supra) which was a judgment arising out of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, Apex Court clearly held that procedure prescribed for auction in Rule 285-A and onwards is mandatory and non observance thereof shall vitiate entire auction. It is worthy to mention at this stage that after 42nd amendment of Constitution though right to property is no more a fundamental right but still it is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A which says that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with procedure prescribed in law. Since Constitution guarantees a person of his right to property except procedure prescribed in law meaning thereby in the matter of procedure, observance thereof has to be in words and spirit strictly and consistent thereto, failing which deprivation of property would be illegal and also unconstitutional being violative of Article 300-A of Constitution of India.

38. In the case in hand, before holding auction, there is no clear thirty days of notice, inasmuch as, sale proclamation itself was served upon the petitioners on 23/27th January, 1997, it cannot be said that a due notice was given as provided in statute.

39. Then comes the question whether Rule 285-D has been followed or not. It contemplates that 25% of the auction money shall be deposited at the fall of hammer and the remaining 75% within 15 days. From the record it appears that the property in question was auctioned for Rs.2,60,000/- but 25% of the auction money i.e. Rs.65,000/- was deposited on 27th January, 1997 and rest of the amount on 5th February and 7th February, 1997. In the circumstances it cannot be said that Rule 285-D has not been followed.

40. Though in this case sale has been confirmed by the Collector but the fact remains that neither auction was conducted in accordance with Rule 285 and 285-A nor by the competent authority therefore all consequential actions are illegal and without jurisdiction. Anything, which is the consequence of an illegality, cannot be clothed with validity, for any other reason or on the basis of the conduct of the petitioner. In the circumstances, in my view, the writ petition deserve to succeed.

41. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 26th July, 2004 and 27th September, 2002, impugned in the writ petition are set aside. The entire auction proceedings and all its consequences are declared illegal and nullity.

Order Date :-18.8.2011

KA