- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. This Review Application has been filed for review of judgment and order dated 23-3-2006 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Praversh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U. P. & Ors. , to the extent of directives given "petitioners as well as State Respondents are directed to ensure return back of the property in question to the private respondents forthwith. "
(2.) THIS Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76863 of 2005, Praversh Kumar Sachdeva v. State of U. P. & Ors. , after calling for the record qua auction proceedings, which had been held, found that the said auction proceedings were nothing but an outcome of fraud and manipulation, passed the judgment and order under review, directing the State-respondents as well as petitioner to return back the property to private respondents forthwith. Against the said judgment, Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006 had been filed before Hon'ble Apex Court by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and the Hon'ble Apex Court upon hearing the Counsel for the parties has issued notice limited to the question of refund and interim stay of the direction for deposit of cots has been passed. The order passed by Hon'ble Apex Court is being quoted below : "upon hearing Counsel the Court made following ORDEr Issued limited to the question of refund. Mr. S. R. Setia, learned Counsel appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said respondent No. 4 states that it shall be indicated in the counter-affidavit to be filed as to why the refund as claimed shall not be granted. Issue notice to other respondents. Interim stay of the direction for deposit of costs. (Neena Verma) (Khushi Ram) Court Master Court Master" The applicants claim that they are subsequent purchasers for value without notice and have invested huge amount of money over the said property by constructing multi-storied building, as such directives contained in the judgment under review to the extent that the petitioner as well as State respondents shall ensure return back of the property in question to private respondents forthwith, shall be adversely affecting their rights, as such said part of the order is liable to be recalled, and as far as fraud part is concerned, they have no concern with the same, as they themselves are the victim of greater fraud, and equitable view be taken in the matter. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the applicants, who have applied for review, contended that finding of fact returned on fraud by auction purchaser is not being assailed and to the contrary applicants are victim of much more fraud, in the present case, as hey are bona fide purchasers for value and once this direction of restoring jack property is maintained, they will suffer an irreparable loss and same would be causing unjust enrichment to respondents, who in the past had entered into agreement to sale of the property in question and had realized heavy amount in lieu of the same, and coupled with this, there is no direction for refund of the amount also of the auction money, and at the present moment building worth Rs. 2,00,00,000 is standing and all this will go the respondents, as such it has been prayed that equitable view be taken and the said two lines be deleted from the body of the judgment.
(3.) SRI V. B. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of private respondents, on the other hand, contended that the applicants have ready contested the matter through Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva, and they are not at all bona fide purchaser for the value and the circumstances are speaking for itself, and once auction has been held to be void, then any subsequent right flowing from it also falls to the ground, and the application for review, as it has been framed and drawn, is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which emerges is to the effect that this Court in its judgment dated 23-5-2006 has held auction proceedings to be sham, void and outcome of fraud and manipulation. Against the said judgment, the auction purchaser has approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 83165 of 2006, which has been entertained for limited question of refund. Applicants claim that they are bona fide purchasers for value and pragmatic approach should be taken in the matter, while dealing with the applicants, as they have invested huge amount of money in purchasing the property and developing the same. Background of the case, as reflected from the Review Application and the documents filed in its support thereof, is that Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva entered into an agreement to sale with Manmohan Mitra on 18-7-2004, and as per agreement a sum of 32,00,000/- had been paid as earnest money. As per said agreement possession had to be handed over after at least 90% of the sale consideration was paid. Another agreement to sale dated 29-7-2004 was also there by Deepak Mitra and others in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva and others, wherein Rs. 11,00,00,000/- was paid as earnest money and possession had to be handed over after at least 90% of the sale consideration was paid. There is yet another agreement by Madhurima Mitra in favour of Umesh Chandra Kesharwani and others dated 25-2-2004, wherein advance payment of Rs. 15,00,000/was made. The agreement to sale in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva clearly reflects his interest in the property and without insisting for the said agreement to sell to be brought to logical end by filing suit for specific performance of contract, a novel device was adopted by him by getting the property attached and getting the same put to auction and by misusing the Governmental machineries got the said property transferred in his name. All these aspects of the matter have been dealt with in the original judgment in detail. As possession of property of the respondents had been parted with on the basis of collusive attitude of district administration and as auction proceedings was sham, as such in this backdrop, directives for return back of the property to private respondents had been given. The most curious feature of the case is that after property in question has been purportedly auctioned in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva on 17-12-2004, immediately thereafter on 21-12-2004, Collector executed sale-deed in favour of Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva. Immediately, thereafter, Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva entered into agreement to sell on 5-1-2005 and took advance of twenty lacs rupees. Thereafter, property in question was got converted into freehold on 1-4-2005, and immediately thereafter on 3-5- 2005 sale-deed had been executed by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva in favour of Sanjiv Jain, Sandeep Jain, V. P. Goel, Yogesh Goel, Rohan Mehrotra, Smt. Iti Mehrotra and Rajiv Agrawal, with whom he had Sintered into agreement to sell. Sale-deed dated 3-5-2005 forms part of record. The said sale-deed mentions that on the basis of auction sale property in question had been acquired by Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva. Thereafter he got the same converted into freehold, as such he owned the land and executed the sale-deed. Reason for selling said property is that he was not having much benefit from the said property and after selling the said property to first party, he will purchase second property. The sale- deed clearly mentions that in case any defect is found in the title of the first party, on account of which possession of the second party is defeated or the second party is dispossessed, then the second party will have right to recover the amount from movable and immovable property of the first party. Relevant extract of the sale-deed dated 3-5-2005 is being quoted below :;