Chemistry in Our Life

Reserved
Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 195 of 1991
Hanooman
Vs.
Madan Gopal and others
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ram
Keval Tripathi, Advocate for the respondents.
2. Auction sale of property of the petitioner has given rise to
the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The facts, in brief, are as under.
3. The petitioner obtained loan form the Bank for installing a
pumping set, but failed to repay it. In security of his loan, he
had mortgaged agricultural land measuring about 10.06 acres
situated at Village Roopnagar, Pargana and Tehsil Balrampur,
District Gonda. Pursuant to the recovery proceedings for
recovering a sum of Rs. 4178.05 from the petitioner, Sirdari
Khata No. 151 comprising of 48 plots area 10.06 acres situate
(his mortgaged land, as stated above) put on auction after
obtaining approval from the Commissioner, Faizabad Division on
18.10.1968. The auction took place on 12.09.1969. It was
confirmed by Commissioner, Faizabad on 16.10.1969. The
petitioner admittedly did not file any objection to the auction
sale within the period prescribed under Rule 285I
of U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter
referred to as the "1952 Rules"). For the first time on 07.07.1981,
an application was filed by the petitioner before Additional
Commissioner, Gonda which was rejected vide order dated
17.12.1986 and the revision filed before the Commissioner was
rejected on 12.01.1991. Hence this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under
Rule 285J
of 1952 Rules it is the Collector only who is
competent to approve auction sale whereagainst an appeal lie
before the Commissioner. In the case in hand since the
Commissioner himself has approved auction, hence remedy of
appeal available to the petitioner was knocked away and this...