AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J
(Through Hybrid Mode)
An amount of Rs. 47,393.42 fell due to be paid by the predecessor of the present petitioners; as an amount payable towards the forest dues. When
there was a default committed, hence the Notice, being Notice No. 7363/41-P dated 21.04.1972, was issued by the respondents, to the predecessor of
the petitioners for the payment of the amount, as referred above in relation to the rights which were said to have been infringed by the petitioners with
regard to lot No. 6 of 1969-70.
When there was a default, the Assistant Collector, while exercising its powers under the Government Order No. 72/14/2/198 dated 10.08.1998, had
appointed an auction officer to auction the property of the predecessor of the petitioners in relation to the state dues, which were payable by him in
pursuance to the Notice dated 21.04.1972.
The officer thus appointed to conduct the auction, the auction was held on 23.02.1980, and a report of the culmination of the auction proceedings
was submitted on 01.01.1981, by the Tehsildar, who was thus appointed. The approval of the auction was granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on
07.08.1982, and ultimately, the property, which was auctioned, the auction of the property was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser.
The petitioners have come up in the writ petition, challenging the impugned order dated 17.07.1992, allegedly confirming the auction proceedings
dated 23.02.1980, contending thereof that the knowledge of the auction proceedings, which was initiated in pursuance to the Notice dated 21.04.1972,
came to the knowledge of the petitioners only after the death of their father, which is contended by them in the writ petition, which has chanced on
08.03.1998 i.e. almost 26 years of issuance of notice for recovery in 1972.
I am of the view that any negotiation or transaction, which has taken place subsequent thereto between the DFO and the petitioners, which stood
initiated by the correspondence of the petitioner dated 08.06.2000, will not create any right in favour of the petitioners for the reason being that it is
absolutely a negotiation between the DFO and the petitioners and particularly after the auction being conducted in 1980, the DFO as such has ceased
his rights, to enter into any type of negotiation, because the right has been created and crystallized in favour of the auction purchaser. Hence, filing of
an application or a settlement with the DFO after 20 years of auction, was contrary to the settled law.
Hence, at this belated stage i.e after about 26 years of the Notice of demand of 1972 to the predecessor of the petitioners of the alleged dues and
ultimately on the culmination of the auction proceedings on 23.12.1980, no right as such could be re-agitated by the petitioners on the basis of
correspondence made by them with the DFO.
Even otherwise also, after the culmination of the proceedings and the grant of approval by the SDM on 17.08.1982 of the auction proceedings was
as a consequence of the finality of the proceedings held under Section 285 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, it cannot be reopened by virtue of the present
writ petition and too at this belated stage after several decades. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.