Allahabad High Court
Hansraj Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Collector And 2 ... on 7 August, 2013
Bench: Tarun Agarwala
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39246 of 2013
Petitioner :- Hansraj Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Collector And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J.
Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manoj Kumar Chandel, the learned counsel for the borrower, respondent no. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1,2 and 3.
The petitioner is an auction purchaser, whose bid was accepted by the revenue authorities in auction proceedings. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that respondent no. 4 took an agricultural loan from a Bank. He failed to pay the amount, and accordingly, recovery proceeding was initiated and the revenue authorities issued a citation dated 05th May, 2012 for the recovery of Rs. 1,90,395/-. Respondent no. 4 did not pay the amount as per the recovery citation, and consequently, the tractor of respondent no. 4 was attached in proceedings initiated under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The said tractor was put to auction on 19th June, 2013, on which date, the petitioner's bid was accepted being the highest. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 16,250/- being 1/4th of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer and deposited the balance amount of Rs. 48,700/- on 29th June, 2013, on which date, the auction was confirmed by the revenue authorities. Inspite of confirmation of the auction, upon deposit of the entire amount, the tractor was not released, and accordingly, the auction purchaser has filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the revenue authorities to release the tractor forthwith.
It transpires that after the tractor was auctioned, the borrower, respondent no. 4 approached the writ court by filing writ petition no. 34759 of 2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 1st July, 2013 permitting the borrower to pay the entire amount as per the citation in various installments. Direction no. 5, as contained in the order dated 1st July, 2013, is relevant, which is extracted hereunder:
"(v) This order will not affect any auction if it has already taken place. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act and Rules 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law."
A perusal of this order clearly indicates that if an auction has taken place, the said proceedings will not be affected by an order passed by the Writ Court, in which case, it would be open to the borrower to take appropriate legal proceedings for setting aside the auction under the U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder or file a suit in accordance with law. The borrower was aware of the auction held by the revenue authorities. Once the borrower gets to know that the entire amount has been deposited and the auction has been confirmed, the only remedy for the borrower was to file an application to set aside the auction under the provisions of U.P. Z.A.& L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder or file a suit in accordance with law.
In so far as the revenue authorities are concerned, there was no justification on their part in not releasing the tractor, especially, when the petitioner/ auction purchaser had deposited the entire amount and the auction stood confirmed upon the deposit of the entire amount. The order of the writ court dated 1st July, 2013 passed in the writ petition filed by the borrower clearly indicated that the order of the Writ Court would not affect any auction proceedings. Consequently, there was no embargo upon the revenue authorities in not releasing the tractor.
In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the revenue authorities to release the tractor in favour of the auction purchaser forthwith.
Order Date :- 7.8.2013
Sanjeev
(Tarun Agarwala,J.)
