Kishan Lal vs State of U.P.and Others

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.

In this matter the petitioner impugns the order of the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 4th of August, 1987 on an application No. 12 of 198687 Brij Mandal Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Hathras v. State of U.P, i.e., the Collector, Aligarh. The order is appended as AnnexureIII 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 setting aside the auction sale. The auction purchaser was to be paid 5%, in addition to the money which had been deposited, as damages.

For the purposes of record, the objections which the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra was to consider, as is apparent from the order, were:

"1. That the property worth Rs. 20 lacs and that it has been sold merely for Rs. 90,000.

That the permission of the Commissioner was not obtained which was mandatory under Section 160 of the Land Revenue Act it being admitted by all concerned that this is clearly a nonZ.A. area. Therefore, Z.A. Act does not apply.

That N.T.C. purchased the property in 1972. Therefore, objector is not liable to payment lax thereafter."

Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, 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 exchequer for the price which the property fetches. The third aspect reflects the circumstances that the property may have been purchased by the National Textile Corporation 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 purchaser may have to pay taxes and with effect from which period.

On the second aspect it is canvassed before this Court that Section 160 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, stands deleted in view of Section 339 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. This is not an argument which was raised before the Commissioner, Agra Division, in the proceedings before him, which occasioned the order dated 4th August, 1977, which has been impugned. The applicability of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 is not to be understood as having been repealed so easily as the petitioner''s counsel contends it to be. The qualifications are given in Section 339 aforesaid. The provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, the repeal of which is suggested still continue on the statute book of any provisions which may not apply is subject to their applicability "in their application to such area". Thus, it is not that the general principles have evaporated and there was nothing incorrect in the Commissioner following the general principle that in a matter relating to sale of a large property which may return an equally large sums of money in a public auction, the approval of the Commissioner prior to making the auction ought to have been obtained. That the approval of the Commissioner is not at all required and that the impugned order while expressing it so, suffers from an error, may not be correct.

However, if the petitioner, as an auction purchaser has a grievance and would seriously like to challenge the impugned order, he always could approach the Board of Revenue under Section 333 of the aforesaid, Act and for this purpose, the Court cannot ignore the decision of Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue, 1990, Revenue Judgment, 400 (F.B.).

Should the petitioner be inclined he may apply to the Commissioner to receive the consideration which has been deposited in pursuance of the auction alongwith 5% which has been permitted to him as damages. But, this application maybe made within two months from today.

Thus, the Court is not inclined to interfere in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed and interim order dated 2481987 is discharged.

Dismissed. No order on costs.