- (1.) HEARD Mr.Ratan Kant Sharma, learned counsel for the review petitioners as well as Mr.S.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondents. Through the instant review petition the petitioners have prayed to review the order dated 6.5.2010, passed by this court in writ petition No.1047 (MS) of 1988. The main ground to review the order passed by this court has been taken that this court has failed to appreciate Rule 285-H of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (in short U.P.Z.A.&L.R.Act). It is stated that this court has dealt with the case with the findings that once the petitioners' moved the application and offered to repay the entire dues within 30 days from the date of sale, before confirmation, the Collector was under obligation to set aside the sale, but he did not do so, rather he confirmed the auction sale.
(2.) IT is stated by them that deposition of amount is a condition precedence for acceptance of any such application for setting aside the sale, whereas in the case in hand there is no proof of deposition of amount by the petitioners. It is further stated that only moving the application to set aside the sale within time is not sufficient to set aside the sale until and unless it is followed with the deposit of the amount. In support of his submission he cited the decision of this court i.e. Ghanshyam Singh and others versus Divisional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur and others, reported in 2006 (100) RD 534. In this case this court held that the application is a consequence of the deposit and since no deposit under Rule 285-H of the Rules had been made, therefore, for this reason the application is not maintainable. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that through the application the petitioners had shown their intention to deposit the amount, but until and unless they are permitted by the Collector, there was no occasion for them to deposit the same as the government revenue is always deposited with the Treasury. The Treasury does not accept the amount unless it is verified by the Revenue Authority and on moving their application, the Revenue Authority did not pass any order in the matter. He also relied upon another judgment of this court in his support i.e.Kewal Prasad versus Bank of Baroda and others, reported in 2006 (3) AWC 2976, in which this court after considering the judgment of Ghanshyam Singh (Supra) held that there was no explanation coming forth in the counter affidavit by the respondents as to why the petitioners' application had not been disposed of before the expiry of thirty days. This court further observed that the respondents could not doubt any order having been passed by the Revenue Authority directing the petitioners and permitting them to deposit the amount as required under Rule 285-H.
(3.) HE also raised the question on the locus of the counsel of Review petitioners with the submission that the counsel different to the counsel appeared in the writ petition cannot be permitted to argue the review petition, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following Cases:- (1) M.Poornachandran and another versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 755. (2) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another versus N.Raju Reddiar and another, reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1005. ;