R.H.Zaidi, J. - (1.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sale proclamation dated 28.3.1992. order dated 30.5.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Meerut confirming the sale of the properties owned by the petitioner and the order dated 5.4.1999 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the rules framed under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for short hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" and "the Act".
(2.) The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that it was on an application made by Shri Narendra Singh Tyagi, Secretary, Chini Mill Majdoor Hitkari Samiti, Meerut, Z.A. Form No. 74 for recovery of an amount of Rs. 75.99.445 towards the salary, wages and gratuity of the workmen working in the said factory was issued by the Collector, Meerut. On the basis of the said form dated 28.3.1992, sale proclamation fixing 28.4.1992 for auction of the property specified in the form for recovery of aforesaid amount, was issued. The petitioner as soon as came to know about the aforesaid proceedings, filed objection against the sale before the Collector. Prayer for stay of further proceedings was also made. As no action was taken and no order was passed on the objection of the petitioner by the Collector, the petitioner filed Writ Petition N.o. Nil of 1992 challenging the validity of the recovery proceedings contending that no amount was outstanding against the petitioner in respect of salary, wages, gratuity, etc. and that no recovery certificate was issued by any competent authority. The said writ petition was disposed of finally with the direction that until disposal of the representation, the recovery proceedings shall remain in abeyance and were to be subject to the order passed on the representation. The order dated 20.4.1992 is quoted below : "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought for quashing the recovery proceeding in pursuance of the citation dated 28.3.1992. Annexure-2 of writ petition. The ground of attack in this case is that the recovery proceedings has been initiated without giving opportunity to the petitioner or even the total amount due which the petitioner is liable to pay and he even made a representation before the District Magistrate, respondent No. 1 which is Annexure-3 to the petition and the said representation has yet not been disposed of by respondent No. 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel and on the facts and circumstances of this case. we dispose it of today at the stage of admission finally in accordance with the rules of the Court. Since only relief which the petitioner seeks is that he was not aware of the total dues for which the recovery has been sought and for which he has also made representation. In view of this, we direct respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's representation. Annexure-3 of the petition within two weeks from the date of the certified copy of this order is produced before it. The petitioner is also directed to file certified copy of this order with another copy of the said representation Annexure-3 of petition within two weeks from today. Until disposal of the said representation, the recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance and shall be subject to the order passed in the said representation. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges today."
(3.) The aforesaid order passed by this Court was communicated to the Collector as well as the officer conducting the auction sale, before the auction sale could take place but he deliberately violating and flouting the order passed by this Court held the auction on 28.4.1992 and the property in dispute worth more than Rs. five crores was sold only for an amount of Rs. 93.01.000 without following the procedure prescribed for the same. The petitioner filed an application before the Commissioner, respondent No. 1. and prayed for quashing the auction proceedings under Rule 285-1 of the rules framed under the Act. The Commissioner by his order dated 19.5.1992 entertained the objection and stayed the auction proceedings and confirmation of sale till disposal of the case. The order dated 19.5.1992 is quoted below : ^^fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk A okn ds fuLrkj.k rd uhykedh dk;Zokgh ,oa iqf"V LFkfxr dh tkrh gS A**;