B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is that the order dated 5th March, 1991 (Annexure-10 to the petition), cancelling the auction held on 13th February, 1991 (Annexure-5 to the petition), in which the petitioner's bid being highest, was accepted (vide Annexure-6 to the petition), be quashed.
(2.) In brief, the facts are that a building was to be constructed on plot Nos. 93 and 96 in village Saraiya Raja Saheb, Pargana and Tehsil Mehmodabad, district Sitapur in May, 1990. As there were trees standing on the land, it was thought necessary that the trees may be auctioned. Accordingly, after obtaining the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, opposite party No. 3, and the resolution of the Land Management Committee dated 31-5-1990, the trees situated on the land were notified for auction to be held on 13th February, 1991. The auction was held in view of the procedure under Para 57 of the Gaon Sabha and Bhumi Prabhandhak Samiti Manual, and the petitioner being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted for a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, out of which the petitioner was to deposit Rs. 14,500/- as one fourth of the total auction money. He immediately deposited Rs. 14,500/- vide Annexure-7 to the petition. The auction after being approved by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 26-2-1991 (Annexure-8 to the petition), the petitioner also deposited the entire auction money. He deposited a sum of Rs. 35,500/- on 1st March, 1991 and the remaining sum of Rs. 8000/- on 4th March, 1991 (vide Annexure-9 to the petition). All of a sudden, without any information or notice on 16th March, 1991, the petitioner was restrained from removing the trees that was presumably in pursuance of the impugned order dated 5th March, 1991 (Annexure-10 to the petition), in which it is mentioned that one Sri Akhtar has moved an application to the effect that he was willing to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/-, whereas in favour of the petitioner, his bid was accepted as the same was highest and the petitioner paid the entire sum of Rs. 58,000/-. But the present grievance of the petitioner is that without any notice and without any authority under law, the impugned order dated 5th March, 1991 has been passed and the same may be quashed.
(3.) By an order dated 11th July, 1991, two weeks and no more time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit. Prior to that, time was also granted to the Standing Counsel, but he did not file any counter-affidavit. As there is a stop order, consequently, we have no option but to proceed to decide the writ petition on merits without giving any further time to the Standing Counsel. It is desirable that the State Government must improve the conduct of litigation on behalf of the Government in the High Court, so that counter-affidavits be filed in time allowed by the Court and real assistance is rendered when the case is argued.;