- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. 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 to 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 No. 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- 92, 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. " 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 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-I 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: "efje eve Deefoeje e e ke es megvee~ Jeeo kes efvemleejce leke veeruece ke er ke ee&jeener SJeb Hegef mleefiele ke er peeleer nw~" The information of the said stay order was communicated to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsildar on 21-5-1992; but as they had refused to receive the same, the copies of the order were sent to them by registered post which was received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 22-5-1992. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate acting in utter disregard of the order passed by the Commissioner, confirmed the auction sale on 30-5-1992. It has also been stated that immediately thereafter i. e. 2-6-1992, the possession over the property in dispute was delivered to the auction purchaser, respondent No. 6. By order dated 18-2- 1993, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), while dealing with the objection of the petitioner, held that auction of the properties of the petitioner and confirmation of the same, were bad in law and were liable to be set aside as there was no recovery certificate issued by any competent authority and further in view of order dated 20-4-1992 passed by the High Court and order dated 19-5-1992 passed by the Commissioner, neither auction could be held nor it could be confirmed. Having recorded the said findings, he referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. However, the Board of Revenue did not accept the reference and turned down the same on the ground that the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) has no jurisdiction to dispose of the objection filed under Rule 285-I of the Rules and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the objection. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the petitioner again filed writ petition No. 45726 of 1993, which was partly allowed by this Court by judgment and order dated 21-10- 1997 and the matter was sent back to the respondent No. 1 for decision afresh in the light of the observations and directions made by this Court. The operative portion of the said order is quoted below: "in the result this writ petition succeeds in part. The impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue shall stand modified requiring the Commissioner, the respondent No. 3 to consider and finally disposed of the objections filed by the petitioner under Rule 285-I of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as well as the revision filed against the order confirming the sale in question dated 30-5-92 in accordance with law within a period not later than three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. There shall however, be no order as to costs. "
(3.) THEREAFTER, the Board of Revenue sought comments from the Collector on the representation of the petitioner. In compliance of the order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Collector submitted his comments. The matter was thereafter sent to the Collector by the Board of Revenue. The Collector by his order dated 18-12-1995, removed the receiver, who was continuing since before, holding that no amount was outstanding against the petitioner nor any recovery certificate was pending disposal. The receiver was also directed to prepare inventory and a Chartered Accountant was appointed to audit the accounts from 1984 to 1995. The petitioner filed a representation before the Board of Revenue as the petitioner wanted the audit of accounts from 1977 to 1984. As no action was taken on the representation filed by the petitioner, the petitioner again had to approach this Court and to file writ petition No. 10220 of 1996. This Court entertained the petition and on 8-4-1996 issued direction to the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to decide petitioner's representation and communicate the order to the petitioner by 30-6-1996. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, the Board of Revenue issued a direction to the Collector to submit a report. The Collector, thereafter, submitted his report to the effect that from 3-1-1977 to 24-10-1990, amount of Rs. 1,16,10,101,53 was outstanding against the petitioner. After going thorough the material on the record, the Chairman, Board of Revenue found that the attachment of compensation of the petitioner's land was illegal inasmuch as the statement of provisional deductions was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 20-2- 1992 of the Collector was illegal. The Chairman directed the Collector to pay the balance amount after adjusting Rs. 1,62,02,402. 20, which was due under the demand notice if there was no recovery certified in respect of the said amount against the petitioner. Since the amount outstanding was Rs. 1. 16 crores and the Chairman directed deduction of Rs. 1. 62 crores, the petitioner once against filed writ petition No. 31378 of 1996. This Court on 17-7-1997 granted interim order directing the payment of Rs. 4,33,94,783. 40 after deducting Rs. 1,62,02,402. 20, within two months with the remarks that this payment shall be subject to final decision. It was on 21-10-1997 that writ petition No. 45726 of 1993 was partly allowed by this Court and the Commissioner was directed to dispose of the objection as well as the revision filed against confirmation of auction sale within three months. Since the orders passed by the Board of Revenue as well as by this Court were not complied with, the petitioner was obliged to file contempt petition No. 2611 of 1997 for non-compliance of the order dated 17-7-1997, referred to above, on which notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why action under the Contempt of Courts Act be not taken against them. The petitioner on 28-1-1998 also filed an application before the Commissioner in Case No. 15/91- 92 of 1992 to determine whether there was any recovery certificate or notice of demand issued before the auction dated 28-4-1992. Thereafter, arguments were heard by the Commissioner and order/judgment was reserved. The writ petition No. 9716 of 1992 was disposed of with the direction to decide the application dated 28-1-1998 of the petitioner. The Commissioner rejected the objection of the petitioner and approved the auction dated 28-4-1992 and confirmation of sale dated 30-5-1992. The Commissioner found that were public dues against the petitioner for recovery of which, auction was held and auction of the properties owned by the petitioner was legal and valid. Hence, the present petition.;