KEDAR NATH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 12-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KEDAR NATH DOBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/Uttar 
Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1953-Rules 285-A, 
C 285-H, 285-K, 285-L-Power of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM)-
Conjirmation of sale of land of defaulter-High Court struck down sale holding 
that SDM did not· have authority to confirm the sale and only the Collector 
has such authority-Correctness of-Held: Various Notifications put on record 
show that SDM has authority to discharge all functions of Collector-High 
Court did not consider such Notifications-Matter remitted back for 
D reconsideration in the light of the Notifications. 
In recovery proceedings initiated under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, land belonging to the predecessor-
in-title of respondents was auctioned. The predecessor-in-title of appellant 
was the successful bidder and the sale was confirmed. The sale was 
E challenged before the High Court on the ground that the requisite 
procedure and prescribed rules were not followed and the auction sale was 
confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who did not have the authority 
to confirm the same. High court struck down the sale holding that SDM 
did not have any authority to confirm the sale. 
F 
In .appeal to this court, the appellant con~ended that the High Court 
erroneously made reference to 17 .1.1976 notification without noticing that 
other notifications which held the field clearly indicated that the Sub-
Divisional Officer has the power to accord approval to the auction sale; 
that reference was made to Notification dated 11.6.1953 and letter of the 
G Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 and as the respondent 
rested its case on Rule 285-1 and the High Court did not find anything 
irregular in the order of the Commissioner holding that the provision to 
Rule 285-I of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Rules, 1953 had been complied with, no interference by the High Court 
was called for. 
H 
352 
KEDAR NA TH DUBEY (D) BY LRS. v.SHEO NARAIN DUBEY (D) BY LRS. [PASA YAT, J.J 353 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD : The Notification dated 11.6.1953 makes the position clear 
that in all the districts of Uttar Pradesh except districts of Almora, 
Garhwal, Tehri Garhwal and Rampur, SDOs were authorized to discharge 
all the functions of the Collector under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. A bare reading of the Notification B 
dated 11.6.1953 as published in the official gazette dated 13.6.1953 shows 
that it empowered all SDOs in Uftar Pradesh except those in the 
enumerated districts to discharge all the functions of the Collector under 
the Act. Letter of the Secretary, Revenue Board, U.P. dated 7.7.1983 also 
throws light on the controversy. It related to discharge of power under c 
various provisions of the Act. It noted that by notification of 5.12.1968 
Sub-Divisional Officers have been authorized to discharge all functions 
of the Collector under.the Act except Section 198. Primafacie the stand 
of the appellant is correct. It appears that these pleas were not considered 
I 
by the High Court. The matter is remitted to the High Court for 
considering it in accordance with law. (357-H; 358-C) 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3361 of2005. 
•'. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14. 7.2004 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6437 of 1991. 
E 
Praveen Kumar Rai and Ms. Kavita Wadia for the Appellants. 
C.D. Singh, R.K. Singh, Sanjay Kr. Singh, Ms. Kiran Suvama, Pramod 
Swarup, J.K. Bhatia and Punit Dutt Tyagi for the Respondents . 
. , 
' 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
.. 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
'• 
Challenge in this appeal is to the decision by a learned Single Jtidge.of 
the Allahabad High Court holding that the auction sale ori 18.8: 1989 and 
confirmation thereof was illegal. Kedar Nath Dubey, the predecessor of the G 
appellant was the successful bidder. Objection filed by Sheo Natain Dubey, 
the predecessor of non-official respondents was rejected by order dated 
18.8.1989. 
A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice. 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The writ petitioner, Sheo Narain Dubey, the predecessor of non-official - · 
respondents had taken a loan f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.