- (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 7. 2. 2004 and 9. 2. 2004, passed by respondent No. 2, Sub- Divisional Of ficer, Sikandarpur, Ballia setting aside auction sale. He has further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to confirm auction sale made in his favour and issue sale certificate along with delivery of possession.
(2.) WE have heard Sri W. H. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gulrej Khan learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. It appears from the record that Sahdeo Prasad, Birendra Prasad, Ram Avtar Prasad, Kishan Prasad and Ganesh Prasad, residents of village Sisodar, Tehsil Sikandarpur, district Ballia, owners of M/s Kisan Cold Storage and Ice Factory took loan from respondent No. 3, the U. P. Finance Corporation amountinq to Rs. 1,71,300 They could not repay the loan: The total interest accrued on the principal amount of loan became Rs. 37,33,570. Some other expenses were also included and recovery certificate for realisation of total amount of Rs. 39,96,695. 78 only was issued by the Collector, Ballia. In pursuance of recovery certificate plot No. 121 area 1. 30 acres situate in village Gang Kishore, tehsil Sikandarpur district Ballia belonging to principal-debtors was put to auction. Ad mittedly a boundary wall and some constructions were also there in the land. The sale proclamation was issued repeatedly at so many times as mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition but non turned up to take part in the bid. Ultimately on 6. 1. 2004, three persons appeared for taking part in the bid and the petitioner was one of them. The other persons were Krishan Kumar and Vijendra Singh. The highest bidder was the petitioner. He offered amount of Rs. 10. 15 lacs only for said property. He deposited entire amount of bid. The respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 19. 1. 2004 informed the Collector Ballia that he had accepted the bid. The copy of letter is Annexure-8 to the writ petition. However, in the meantime Suresh Prasad, Shree Ram Chaudhary and Chhotey Lal filed objection dated 21. 1. 2004, 16. 11. 2004 and 7. 1. 2004 respectively. The Tehsildar, Sikandarpur scrutinised objections of said persons and submitted report Annexure 77 to the writ petition, on the basis of which, Dy. Collector, Sikandarpur cancelled the sale vide order dated 7. 2. 2004 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. It may be pointed out here that owner of the property auctioned did not prefer any objection. The Finance Corporation also did not raise any objection, rather approved the auction sale. The three persons named above, who had filed objections were not concerned with the sale. Chhotey Lal mentioned this fact in his objection that he was ready to purchase the property in dispute on the price 50% higher to the price offered by the petitioner. It may also be pointed out here that even after proclamation on 13 times, no one appeared to take part in the bid. In pursuance of last proclamation dated 6. 11. 2003, the petitioner and two others participated in the bid. The objectors never took any interest in auction proceed ings. The Deputy Collector concerned cancelled the auction sale mainly on two grounds i. e. price offered by the petitioner was low and on the bid sheet, two other bidders namely Krishan Kumar and Vijendra Singh had not put their signatures.
(3.) AS regard signature of other two bidders is concerned Annexure-5 shows that they had deposited security money amounting to Rs. 25,000 each and put their signatures on the memo of depositing security money. Annexure-4 shows that on the condition for sale issued by Tehsildar Sikandarpur, Ballia also, they had put their signatures. Not only this they took refund of their earnest money Rafter bid was finalised. It appears that due to mistake of auctioning authority their signatures could not be obtained on the bid sheet though it has been mentioned in the writ petition that they had put their signatures on the same. As regard sale price is concerned, the Deputy Collector concerned based his finding on the report of Naib Tehsildar, Sikandarpur, Ballia which is Annexure-7. The price of land was assessed on the basis of circle rate fixed by the Collec tor. In the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan, Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and another, 2004 (2) SCC 283, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "for deter mining market value of land circle rate has not to be applied but comparable sales method is the best acceptable method for such determination". It has also been made in the writ petition that Naib Tehsildar concerned in citing circle rate also committed mistake in calculation. The land adjacent to road upto 6 decimal area should have been assessed at Rs. 600/ per sq. meter and further upto 12 decimal area, rate should have been Rs. 450/- per sq. meter and further 25 deci mal area, should have been assessed by Rs. 250/- per sq. meter and over 37 decimal the rate should have been 4. 40 lacs per acres. Thus, according to the petitioner total value comes to Rs. 5. 7 lacs only. The Naib Tehsildar concerned himself has assessed value of construction to be Rs. 4 lacs only in his report Annexure-7. Thus, total value comes to Rs. 9. 72 lacs only. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that sale price offered by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 10. 15 lacs only was higher than that actual value of the property in dispute. This is no method for cancellation of sale that third party after auction proceed ings comes to offer more price than the highest bidder.;