SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.1995 as contained in Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, on the basis of which the property of the petitioner was transferred in the name of the State of Uttar Pradesh, in the revenue record after being auctioned on the said date. He has further challenged the orders dated 16.11.1995, by which the objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected being barred by limitation, on the ground that the sale has already been confirmed as well as the order dated 26.2.1996, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.11.1995, was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Lucknow.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that opposite party No. 5 to the writ petition Sri Ikrar Ahmad had taken a loan of Rs. 27,000/- under the Minority Scheme for establishing Sultan Kirana and General Store, situated in Shukul Bazar Road, Jagdishpur, District Sultanpur, in which the petitioner was one of the guarantors and the opposite party No. 6 Sayeed Ahmad was another guarantor. In that guarantee, the petitioner being a proprietor of Surman Medical Store, his Medical Store paper was deposited in the bank as 'guarantee'. The opposite party No. 5 failed to deposit the regular instalment imposed by the Bank. It has been averred in the writ petition that without making real efforts for recovery of the loan from the debtor- opposite party No. 5, and without issuing Form Nos. 73 and 74, the property of the petitioner, which was not even mortgaged, has been auctioned. The auction proceedings took place in the year 1990 behind the back of the petitioner, which came into the knowledge of the petitioner on 25.6.1995 when he went to Tehsil for a copy of Khautauni, that his property No. 648, 7 Biswa, 17 dhur and 733; 12 biswa, 15 dhur has been auctioned in one rupee. The objection as well as the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed being barred by limitation. The said impugned orders are illegal and non-speaking. There was no deliberate delay on the part or the petitioner. It has also been said that the said property is situated on the road side of near the main market of Jagdishpur, the valuation of which is above than rupees five lacs.
(3.) IN the affidavit, filed in support of the application for interim relief, the petitioner has asserted that now the entire loan l s been deposited by the borrower with the bank and the bank has issued no dues certificate to opposite party No. 5. The property, which was auctioned in lieu of one rupee, has been recorded in the name of the State Government, and the opposite parties might give patta of the land. The writ petition was filed in the year 1997. On 15.7. 1997, learned standing Counsel was directed to file counter- affidavit within four weeks. Since then, on one ground or the other, the case has been adjourned and the State could only file counter- affidavit on May 16, 2011 highly belatedly.;