- (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order, by which sale has been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser on 02.02.2000.
(2.) THE petitioner claims that he had taken certain loans which could not be repaid within time and therefore, recovery certificate was issued against him which was the subject matter and was challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4433 of 2000. This writ petition was decided by this Court by judgment and order 31.01.2000. In the said judgment the relief was granted to the petitioner and he was permitted to deposit the entire amount in three equal installments within six months. THE first installment was to be paid within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. According to the petitioner the entire amount was deposited in terms of the order of this Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 submits that the sale was confirmed in his favour on 02.02.2000 and the petitioner for the first time made an application before the tehsildar, who was the recovering authority, on 01.03.2000 and therefore, the petitioner himself is to be blamed for not informing the authority regarding the order passed by this Court. Now, the sale has been confirmed in his favour and his valuable right would be affected due to the mistake committed by the petitioner himself. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that under the Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 the petitioner can raise an objection before the Commissioner, but to the misfortune of the petitioner Rule 285-K provides that if no application under Rule 285-I is made within time allowed, all claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale shall be barred. The said provision, -? however, grants liberty to the petitioner to file a suit in the civil court.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4. In my view, before the petitioner filed his application, bringing on record the order passed by this Court the sale had already been confirmed in favour of respondent no. 4 on 02.02.2000. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the present proceeding and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. It may however be observed that the petitioner is always at liberty to pursue the remedy that may be available to him in law before the appropriate forum.;