ANIL KUMAR,J. - (1.) HEARD Shri N. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) FACTS in brief of the present case are that the petitioners for purchasing a tractor in order to facilitate the farming had taken a loan of Rs.45,000/- from the opposite party no.3/State Bank of India,. Branch at Mishrikh, Distt- Sitapur. In addition to the aforesaid loan, the petitioners have also taken a loan from U.P. Gramin Vikas Ltd. The loan taken by the petitioner from opposite party no.3 was not paid up as per the installment due and only a sum of Rs.5400/- has been paid, so the opposite party no.3 in order to recover the loan amount proceeded to auction the petitioners' land which was mortgaged for taking a loan. Thereafter, on 12.2.1992, the land of the petitioners has been auctioned and the same was purchased by opposite party no.4/Smt. Bittu Devi. As per version of the petitioners, after the auction the petitioners moved an application under Rule 285-H of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). However, the said application was not considered and decided by the opposite party no.2/Collector, Sitapur, so he moved another application dated 2.6.1992 (Annexure No.4) under Rule 285 I of the Rules 1954, rejected by order dated 9.2.1993 (Annexure No.5) by respondent no.1. Hence for redressal of his grievances, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(3.) ON behalf of auction purchaser Smt. Bittu Devi, a counter affidavit has been filed inter alia stating therein that the land in question has been purchased by her in the open auction on 12.2.1992. As a matter of fact on record, petitioners have not moved any application under Rule 285 H as alleged by him and only an application for objection has been filed by him which was rejected by opposite party no.1 on merit after hearing learned counsel for the parties by the impugned order dated 9.2.1992. During the pendency of the present writ petition, petitioner no.1 namely Bachhan Singh died, as such, he has been substituted by his legal representatives Sri Dinesh Pratap Singh and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Singh as petitioner nos.1/1 and 1/2 respectively.;