Jagdish Prasad And Others vs Commissioner Ayodhya Division ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8351 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 7
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4803 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Jagdish Prasad And Others
 
Respondent :- Commissioner Ayodhya Division Ayodhya And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Lal,Mohan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kapish Srivastava,Shravan Kumar Verma
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, Sri Kapish Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. The facts, as pleaded in the writ petition, have got a chequered history which admittedly have been considered by this Court in Writ-C No.1003954 of 2003 in re: Hari Lal and 2 others vs. Commissioner, Faizabad and 5 others, vide order dated 28.04.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-21 to the petition, as such, for the sake of brevity, the order dated 28.04.2022 is being reproduced below:-

"Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shravan Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.09.2003 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.

The facts in brief are that the petitioners had taken loan from the respondent Bank for purchase of Tractor. As the petitioners could not repay the loan, the Bank initiated proceedings by issuance of a citation. It appears from the record that initially the Bank tried to sell the Tractor by attaching the same, however the efforts for selling was rendered futile, as such, the Bank proceeded for auction the immovable property of the petitioners. The said auction was deferred on three occasions, however, subsequently the auction took place on 21.09.2000. The report recommending the acceptance of the auction was forwarded on 26.11.2000 and in pursuance thereto, the auction was confirmed on 28.11.2000. The petitioners preferred a revision along with the said revision also preferred objection under Section 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Commissioner. Two orders came to be passed which are under challenge in the present petition. The order as contained in Annexure-2 rejected the objection of the petitioners in respect of the confirmation of auction holding the same to be time barred. However, while deciding the revision, the revisional court only considered the effect of mandate of Section 154 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and proceeded to dismiss the revision (Annexure-1).

The Counsel for the petitioners argues that the entire auction proceedings was contrary to the mandate of law, no procedure as prescribed for auction of immovable property was done. He has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 287-A of the U.PZ.A. & L.R. Act. He further argues that in terms of the power conferred by virtue of Section 294 of U.P,Z.A. & L.R. Rules with regard to auction has been laid down. Rule 281 onward, he argues that in terms of the mandate of Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it was incumbent upon the Commissioner to have gone into the issues raised by the petitioners with regard to the illegality committing in auction which has not even been considered and thus he prays that the order as contained in Annexure-1 deserves to be set aside.

The Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that as no objection under Section 285-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, no illegality has been committed in confirming the auction. He further argues that the petitioners had approached this Court by filing writ petition but did not comply with the directions given by this Court as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, justifies the orders and argues that the auction was done in accordance with law and after following the mandatory provisions as prescribed under the Rules and thus no interference is called for.

Considering the submissions made at the bar and on perusal of the order as contained in Annexure-1 whereby the revision is dismissed, it is clear that none of the grounds agitated by the petitioners in their revision were considered and decided by the Commissioner while dismissing the revision. The only ground on which the revision was dismissed was that the bar of Section 154 will not apply. Considering the facts that none of the grounds as agitated by the petitioners pertaining to the irregularities in the auction has been considered by the revisional court, the order dated 11.09.2003 as contained in Annexure-1, insofar as, the same dismissed the revision is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh adjudication after giving opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.

Considering the fact that the matter is very old one, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners as well as the respondent no.6 to appear before the concerned Commissioner, who has to decide the revision on 10.05.2022 at 12:00 noon either personally or through their authorized person.

No fresh notice shall be sent to the petitioners or the respondent no.6.

The Commissioner shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law with all expeditions preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance. The parties shall not taken any unnecessary adjournments.

In the meanwhile, till the revision is decided, the parties shall maintain the status quo with regard to title and possession over the property in dispute.

The challenge to the second order Annexure-2 whereby the objection preferred was rejected, does not require any interference as the objections could not have been filed before the Commissioner in terms of the mandate of Section 258-I of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.

In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed off."

4. From perusal of the aforesaid order of this Court, it is apparent that the matter now before this Court revolves around a very narrow compass as canvassed by the petitioners i.e. the direction of the writ Court dated 28.04.2022, which judgment has attained finality, was that none of the grounds as were raised by the petitioners in their revision had been considered and decided by the learned Commissioner while dismissing the revision. This Court considering the aforesaid fact was of the view that the learned Commissioner shall decide the matter in accordance with law within a specified time.

5. In pursuance thereof, the learned Commissioner has dismissed the revision vide order dated 15.06.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the grounds, as were canvassed by him in the revision filed before the learned Commissioner would be apparent from perusal of the revision itself, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-13 to the petition, in which two grounds had specifically been taken by him namely (a) that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had no jurisdiction to confirm the sale and (b) that the Sub Divisional Magistrate did not go into the validity of the auction proceedings. However, learned Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 has not considered the said grounds and has dismissed the revision. The said grounds not having been considered by the learned Commissioner has also been admitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5 and 6.

7. Considering the aforesaid more particularly when the judgment of the writ Court dated 28.04.2022 has already attained finality as such the learned Commissioner was required to consider the grounds that had been raised by the petitioners in their revision more particularly keeping in view the specific directions issued by the writ Court. However, again the said grounds have not been considered which has resulted in filing of the instant petition.

8. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and the admitted position being that the grounds as canvassed by the petitioners in the revision have not been considered, the impugned order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure-1 to the petition) is set-aside.

9. As the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 and 6 are already represented through their respective counsels before this Court as such no fresh notice is required to be sent to the petitioners or respondent nos. 5 and 6. The matter before the court of learned Commissioner would be listed on 16.08.2022 on which date the petitioners and respondent nos. 5 and 6 shall either appear personally or through authorized persons.

10. The Commissioner shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after considering the grounds as raised by the petitioners in the revision dated 30.04.2001 within a period of three months from the date of their appearance. The parties shall not take any unnecessary adjournments.

11. Till such time, the revision is decided, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to title and possession over the property in dispute.

12. Needless to mention that the revisional court shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Order Date :- 28.7.2022

A. Katiyar