LexSARDAR NIRMAL SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. versus BHATIA SAFE WORKS & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 183
SARDAR NIRMAL SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS.
v.
BHATIA SAFE WORKS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.1178 of2007)
A
MARCH 03, 2016
B
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforins Rules, 1952 - rr.
285B and 285C - Property put for auction for realization of land
revenue - Auction sale made in favour of appellant - Challenge to,
C
on the ground of non-compliance of the proper.procedure while
conducting the auction - Single Judge of the High Court ajfirining
the order of the Board of Revenue, set aside the auction sale made
in favour of the appellant - On appeal held: When steps are taken
for putting a property for auction for realization of land revenue,
they are required to be strictly guided by the Rules as the whole
D
conduct of the auction is governed and controlled by the Rules -
An auction without following the rules is legally unacceptable and
also absolutely contrary to the fundamental principles of holding
auction - On facts, the c01i1pete111 authority did not follow the due
procedure as per Rules - Competent Authority to refimd the amount
E
deposited by the appellant before the authority with 5% interest per
annum.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Competent authority did not follow the due
procedure as per Rules. Auction was held within one day after
F
the notice was issued. Rule 28SA to 28SC of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 deal With the procedure
for putting the property in auction. On a perusal of the said Rules,
it is demonstrable that the proclamation has to be issued in a
·particular Form 34 and it is incumbent on the Collector to give
the estimated value of the property calculated with the Rules in
Chapter XV of the Revenue Manual. It is submitted that there
has been no estimation of the value and no notice was given to
the respondent. The Board of Revenue has clearly ruled that the
auction procedure has not been followed. The conclusion arrived
G
at by the Board of Revenue ·is absolutely infallible. When steps H
183
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 2 S.C.R.
A are taken for putting a property for auction for realization of land
revenue, they are required to be strictly guided by the Rules as
the whole conduct of the auction is governed and controlled by
the Rules, the authority conducting the auction must acquaint
itself with every facet of the rules and proceed so that the matters
B are not procrastinated on such counts. An auction without
following the rules is legally unacceptable and also absolutely
contrary to the fundamental principles of holding auction. The
authority holding the auction should bear in mind that his action
has serious effect and, therefore, no impropriety or violation can
be allowed to usher in. The Competent Authority is directed that
C
the amount deposited by the appellant before the authority should
be refunded with 5% interest per annum. [Paras 14, 151 [191-H;
192-A-E, G]
D
E
F
G
Ram Swaroop vs. Board of Revenue 1999 RD 291; Rao
Mahmook Ahmad Khan through their L.R. vs. Ranbir
Singh & Ors. 1995 (2) SCR 230 : 1995 { 4) Suppl. SCC
275; Stale of Uttar Pradsesh & Ors. vs. Swadeshi Polytex
Limited & Ors. (2002) 12 SCC 596; Ram Kishun & Ors.
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2012 (6) SCR 105 :
(2012) 11 SCC 511;Manilal Mohan/al shah vs. Sardar
Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mohmade AIR 1954 SC 349 : 1955
SCR 108 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
1999 RD 291
referred to.
Para4
1995 (Z) SCR 230
referred to.
Para 9
c2002) 12 sec 596
referred to.
Para9
2012 (6) SCR 105
referred to.
Para9
1955 SCR 108
referred to.
Para 12
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1178
OF2007
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.04.2005 in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 54478 of 2004 passed by the High Court of Uttar
Pradesh at Allahabad
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, Adv., for the Appellants.
Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv., Vinay Garg, Adarsh Upadhyay, Vikas
H Mehta, Advs., for the Respondents.
SARDAR NIRMAL SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. v. BHATIA
I 85
SAFE WORKS
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A
DIPAK MISRA, J. I. The present appeal, by special leave, is
directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of
the High CourtofJudicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc. No.54478
of 2004 whereby the said court has affirmed the order of the Board of
Revenue which had held that the auction sale made fo favour of the
B
appelExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.