ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI , J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed by Ram Gopal Verma against the order dated 22.10.2009 passed by Member (Judicial), Hon'ble Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Revision No. 5 (Sale)/LR 1999 -2000 by which order dated 10.5.2000 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) and auction dated 19.6.1997 was also quashed.
(2.) ON factual matrix of the case Santosh Kumar was the owner of Khata No. 335, Plot Nos. 575/1.073, 582/0.746 in which he has got l/3rd share. He has taken a loan of amounting Rs.9500 from U.P. Rajay Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Limited, Kachhauna, Hardoi but later on became defaulter of the same. Several notices were issued and a notice was served to repay the loan and when the loan amount was not repaid, auction proceeding was initiated and Akar Patra 73 and 73 -Gha was issued and served and thereafter Akar Patra 74 for auction of the property was issued and served, but the amount due was not deposited. Later on 19.6.1997 auction took place. No objection was filed by Santosh Kumar against estimated amount. The amount was not deposited hence a proposal dated 16.8.1997 was prepared by Tehsildar, Tehsil -Sadar, District -Hardoi and the 'same was accepted on 16.8.1997 by learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi and auction took place in which petitioner was the highest bidder. His bid was accepted, due a count was deposited which was admitted by authorities on 13.10.1997 and was approved by learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi on 13.10.1997 and thereafter sale certificate under Rule 285 -M of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, 1952 (later on referred as the Rules) was prepared and signed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Hardoi for registering the document. It was registered in the office of Sub -Registrar, Hardoi. After that Tehsildar wrote a letter to Consolidation Officer, Baghauli for entering the name of petitioner in place of Santosh Kumar on the basis of Sale Certificate. Santosh Kumar (opposite party No. 5) filed a Sale -Objection under Rule 285 -1 which was registered as Sale Objection No. 22/97 -98 before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. This objection was rejected by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) on 10.5.2000 as there was no illegality or irregularity in the auction proceeding. Feeling aggrieved Santosh Kumar filed revision before Board of Revenue which was allowed by the impugned order.
(3.) IT was argued from the side of petitioner as per Rule 285 -H the person whose land has been sold under the Act at any time within 30 days from the date of sale apply to have the same set aside on his depositing in the Collector's Office for payment of the purchaser, the same equal to 5% purchase money and for payment on account of arrears amount specify in the proclamation in Z.A. Form 14. It was also argued that this procedure was not adopted hence the application is liable to be rejected. It was barred and it could not have been filed before the Additional Commissioner.;