- (1.) THIS Court has heard Sri Vinod Kumar Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Suresh Chandra Verma, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4.
(2.) IN this matter the petitioner im pugns the order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 4th of August, 1987 on an application No. 12 of 1986-87 Brij Mandal Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. , Hathras V. State of U. P. and others, i. e. , the Collector, Aligarh and two others. The order is ap pended as Annexure-III to the writ petition. The petitioner is an auction purchaser of the property No. 2659, situated in Kilah Ward, Hathras, District Aligarh. The property was at one time owned by Ram Babu Lal, respondent No. 4. One of the main grounds on which the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, set aside the sale was because the previous sanction of the Commissioner had not been taken for the approval of the auction bid. The Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra was of the view that the mandatory provision of law has not been followed and there were material irregularities while set ting aside the auction sale. The auction pur chaser was to be paid 5%, in addition to the money which had been deposited, as damages. For the purposes of record, the ob jections which the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra was to consider, as is ap parent from the order, were: "1. That the property worth Rs. 20 lacs and that it has been sold merely for Rs. 90,000. 2. That the permission of the Commissioner was not obtained which was mandatory under Section 160 of the Land Revenue Act it being admitted by ail concerned that this is clearly a non-Z. A. area. Therefore, Z. A. Act does not apply. 3. That N. T. C. purchased the property in 1972. Therefore, objector is not liable to payment Tax thereafter. "
(3.) INSOFAR as the first aspect is con cerned, it is about the property auctioned as having been sold merely for Rs. 90,000 when its value may be worth Rs. 20 lacs. This is a financial matter. For these who manage public auctions and ultimately carry the responsibility are unanswerable to the ex chequer for the price which the property fetches. The third aspect reflects the cir cumstances that the property may have been purchased by the National Textile Corpora tion in 1972 and that the objector may not be liable to pay any tax after the year 1972. The suggestion that the incidence of the quantum of taxes would stand reduced on the petitioner from the date of sale. Insofar as third aspect is concerned the National Textile Corporation may have become the owner of the property in 1972 and any tax liability on the erstwhile owner may stand reduced after the sale. It is not possible for the High Court to work out to what extent the tax liability of the erstwhile owner will diminish if the subsequent pur chaser may have to pay taxes and with effect from which period.;