Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J. - (1.) THIS is a dispute relating to auction of a property that had been mortgaged in lieu of a loan taken by the predecessor in interest of the respondent No. 3 for purchase of a tractor. The loan amount having been defaulted, a recovery certificate was issued for realizing a sum of Rs. 1,19,000/- against which the mortgaged property was put to auction. The proceedings are governed by the relevant provisions of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 and the 1952 Rules framed thereunder.
(2.) FROM the facts it appears that the property was owned by five persons including Sukhraj Singh who claimed that he had deposited 1/5th share of his amount as against the loan taken whereas the other defaulters had not. The entire property was put to auction. The respondent Ranjeet Singh also participated in the auction but the petitioner being the highest bider, the bid was knocked down in his favour, who deposited the entire amount. The auction was held on 10th April, 1989 and it was confirmed on 29.5.1989. The possession was delivered according to the petitioner on 12.9.1990. Ranjeet Singh, respondent No. 3 claimed that Sukhraj Singh had executed a Will in his favour and, therefore, he was the legal heir of late Sukhraj Singh and he accordingly set up his claim on the strength of a Will dated 25.9.1984 and also filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 891 of 1989, which was dismissed on 27.11.1990. A revision was filed against the same which is stated to be still pending. Ranjeet Singh filed an objection under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules. 1952 for setting aside the sale. This objection is stated to have been filed barred by time but without there being any condonation of delay, the learned Commissioner allowed the objection vide order dated 16.1.1991 on the ground that the name of the successor of Sukhraj Singh had not been substituted and the sale proclamation of an auction had been carried out against a dead person. The revision was filed by the petitioner against the same which has also been dismissed.
(3.) SRI Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the sale had been confirmed, the sale auction cannot be set aside, inasmuch as, no substantial injury has been demonstrated and no objection either under Rule 285-H or 285-I had been filed within time for taking any such action. He has invited the attention of the Court to the decision in the case of Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.K. Kapoor v. Purshottam Das Poddar, 1981 ACJ 118, to support his submission. He has further cited the decision in the case of Bombay Dyeing and manufacturing Company Limited v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others, AIR 2006 SC 1489 Paragraph Nos. 330 to 334 to contend that the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser and the sale having been confirmed in his favour there was no occasion to have entertained a time barred objection beyond the period prescribed and allow it illegally. Sri Arun Kumar further submits that it was the obligation of the respondent No. 3, Ranjeet Singh to have informed the authorities about the death of Sukhraj Singh as he had knowledge about the same as he was also claiming entitlement on the basis of a Will. Thus, his submission is on the basis of the fact that Ranjeet Singh had participated in the auction and he could have pointed it out at the time of auction itself or could have filed an objection under section 285-H to that effect. Having not done so, it was not open to Ranjeet Singh, the respondent No. 3 herein to turn around and file a belated objection under Rule 285-I which has been entertained beyond the time prescribed.;