Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8542 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rakesh Sahu And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Mishra,Ashish Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
The respondents notified the auction of nazul land Araji No. 2996 area 5.451 hectare and Araji No. 2997 area 0.179 hectare total area 5.621 hectare situated in Bahar Had, District Lalitpur.
The petitioners participated in the aforesaid auction and were declared to be the highest bidders in respect of shop No. 1 and shop No. 21 situated on the said land. The petitioners accordingly deposited one lakh each as the token amount and Rs. 5,25,000/- each as 1/4 of the bid amount.
The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that despite the above, the respondents have failed to execute the sale deeds even though the petitioners are always ready and willing to deposit the balance amount as per the demand of the respondents.
On behalf of respondents, a counter affidavit has been filed and it has been stated therein that the auction proceedings were challenged by one Surya Deo by means of Writ Petition No. 21670 of 2015 (Surya Deo Vs. State of U.P. and others). In the said writ petition, an interim order has been passed on 18.04.2015 providing that the auction proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 06.04.2015 shall go on but the same shall not be finalised till the next date of listing.
It is in view of the above interim order and the pendency of the said writ petition that the auction proceedings in favour of the petitioners have not been finalised.
The aforesaid interim order passed in the above writ petition is clear enough and it does not permit the respondents to finalise the auction proceedings. Therefore, there is no inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalising the auction proceedings and in executing the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners.
Sri Randhir Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not want to press their claim for purchasing the shops auctioned in their favour and their money as deposited may be returned inasmuch as the property is under litigation.
If that is so, the proper course for the petitioners is to move appropriate application forgoing their claims in respect of the aforesaid shops and for the withdrawal of the amount deposited by each one of them. In case, any such application is filed by the petitioners before the respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law most expeditiously within six weeks of the moving of the said application and if the respondent No.2 comes to a conclusion that the amount deposited by the petitioners or any part thereof is to be returned to the petitioners, the same shall be returned to them forthwith.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Nirmal Sinha