Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent no.4 Kunwar Pal Singh was found involved in electricity theft. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately appellate authority by order dated 20.12.1997 found that respondent no.4 was liable to pay Rs. 856999.53 The appeal was dismissed and Assessment order was upheld. Thereafter auction of immovable property of respondent no.4 took place on 28.09.2006 for about Rs. 2.5 lakh. Respondent no.4 filed objections before commissioner Meerut, Division Meerut in the form of objection no.1 of 2006-07 under Rule 285-I U.P.Z.A.L.R. Rules which was allowed on 10.04.2008 and D.M. Ghaziabad was directed to decide the matter afresh. Now D.M. Ghaziabad has passed an order on 14.09.2009 contained in Annexure 13. The D.M. has delegated the matter to A.D.M. Finance and Revenue, Ghaziabad directing that information on certain points must be sought from S.D.O. Hapur and further proceedings should be taken at his level after following due procedure of auction.
(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that rest of the amount is not being recovered.
(3.) In my opinion the Commissioner through order dated 10.04.2008 has directed the D.M. to decide the matter. Accordingly, the D.M. can not further delegate the matter. Of course D.M. can obtain report etc. but final decision will have to be taken by D.M. and shall be so taken.;