SMT. SHANTI DEVI . versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 09-09-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHANTI DEVI . 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1997 
[S.C. SEN AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
A 
B 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952-:-Sec .. 154(1)/Rules 285-A to}-
Land mortgaged for loan-Default in payment of loan-Auction sale-Affidavit C 
of purchaser that his holding remained below 12.50 acres-Auction sale 
confirmed by Collector-Objection that auction purchaser's holding would 
exceed the ceiling of 12.50 acres and that no· notice of sale issued-Dismissed 
on the ground that objection not taken within the stipulated period-On 
appeal, held purchaser holding land ii} excess of I 2. 50 acres is ·not an 
objection relating to any irregularity or mistakes. in publishing and conducting D 
sale-Not barred by Rule 285-K-High Court erred in holding that Section 
154 not applicable to Court sale-Confirmation of sale order set aside-
Appe/lant to be treated as owner and thus entitled to possession. 
Words and Phrases : 
"Satisfied"-Meaning of in the context of Section 285-J ofu:P. Zamindari 
Abolition and land Reforms Rules, 1952 . 
. , 
E 
The appellant mortgaged her land to the Bank for borrowing loan. On 
default in repayment of loan, recovery certificate was issued and auction sale p 
was conducted. The said auction sale was confirmed by the Assistant Collector 
after obtaining an affidavit from the purchaser that even after the purchase, 
his holding remained belo~ 12.50 acres. The appellant filed her objections 
before the Commissioner that if acres 8.50 are added to the existing holding 
of acres 5.00 held by the auction purchaser, his holding would exceed acres 
12.50 as prescribed under Section 154(1) of the U.P. Zatnindari Abolition and G 
Land Reforms· Act; 1950 and no notice of sale was given to her. The 
Commissioner gave no finding on the first objection and dismissed the second 
objection on the ground that the objection was not taken within thirty days of 
sale. The writ petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by tlie High 
Court holding that the restriction under sec. 154 of the Act did not apply to H 
27 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A involuntary sales and even if the purchaser's holding go in excess of acres 
12.50 it would be for the Gaon Sabha to claim the excess. Hence the present 
appeal 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The confirmation of sale order passed by the Assistant 
Collector and the order of the Commissioner rejecting the objections of the 
appellant are vitiated. In the· absence of a confirmatory order, the sale is 
declared as otiose and ineffective and the appellant shall be treated as owner 
of the land-and entitled to possession thereof. (37-C; 38-D) 
C 
2.1. The objection that after the court sale, acres 12.50 vested in the 
purchaser, is not an objection concerning irregularity or mistake in the 
pnblishing or conducting the sale. The procedure for proclamation of sale is 
contained in Rule 282 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 
1952 and the procedure for sale is set out in Rules 285-A to 285-H. None of 
D them refers to section 154(1) of the U.P. Zamindar; Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act, 1950 which deals with the restriction of a purchaser holding 
land in excess of Acres 12.50 after a sale or gift. Thus the objection raised 
by the appellant that the Collector at the stage of confirmation has not applied 
his mind to the question whether after the Revenue sale, the purchaser would 
be holding land in excess of acres 12.50 is not an objection relating to any · 
E irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale and hence it is 
not barred Ly Rule 285-K. [33-G; 34-B) 
2.2. Even if the appellant's application before the Commissioner is to 
be treated as not maintainable, the appellant can challenge the order of 
confirmation on the ground of violation of the requirement of section 154 of 
F the Act and the Court can quash the said order since it was not dealing with 
any irregularity or mistake in the proclamation or conduct of sale, or with 
any fraud in sale. The Court was only dealing with an irregularity arising 
out of the con_firmation order passed under section 285-J in noticing section 
154(1) and this can be corrected directly in writ jurisdiction. [37-B-C) 
G 
3. The High Court erred in holding that the provisions of section 154 
were not applicable to court sales. A statutory duty is cast on the Collector to

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.