Holding

A revenue sale confirmation is void unless the Collector, under Rule 285‑J, is satisfied after proper inquiry that the purchase does not contravene Section 154(1); failure to do so renders the confirmation order invalid and the sale otiose.

Summary

Shanti Devi mortgaged her agricultural land and, upon default, the land was sold at a revenue auction. The purchaser submitted an affidavit that his total holding would remain below the 12.50‑acre ceiling prescribed by Section 154(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, but the appellant argued that after the sale the purchaser would exceed this limit and that no notice of sale had been given. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the objections and the Allahabad High Court upheld the sale, holding that Section 154 did not apply to involuntary sales and that any excess could be claimed only by the Gaon Sabha. The Supreme Court held that Rule 285‑J imposes a statutory duty on the Collector to be "satisfied" that a revenue sale does not contravene Section 154, and that the mere affidavit does not satisfy this duty. Consequently, the objection was not barred by Rule 285‑K, the confirmation order was vitiated, the sale declared otiose, and the appellant was treated as the owner entitled to possession. The appeal was allowed and the High Court’s judgment set aside.

Issues considered

The objection to violation of Section 154(1) after confirmation of a revenue sale is barred by Rule 285‑K.
Whether Section 154(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applies to involuntary (court) sales.
Whether the Collector’s "satisfaction" under Rule 285‑J requires substantive inquiry beyond an affidavit.
Whether a confirmation order can be set aside on the ground of non‑application of mind to Section 154.
Whether the sale is void or merely otiose when the ceiling provision is ignored.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 60(1)
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 154(1), s. 279, s. 282(3)

Subjects

land reformrevenue auction saleSection 154U.P. Zamindari Abolition ActRule 285-Jcollector's satisfactionpossessionmortgagorland ceilingGaon Sabha

Judgment

SMT. SHANTI DEVI . A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1997

[S.C. SEN AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) B

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950/U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952-:-Sec.. 154(1)/Rules 285-A to}-
Land mortgaged for loan-Default in payment of loan-Auction sale-Affidavit C
of purchaser that his holding remained below 12.50 acres-Auction sale
confirmed by Collector-Objection that auction purchaser's holding would
exceed the ceiling of 12.50 acres and that no· notice of sale issued-Dismissed
on the ground that objection not taken within the stipulated period-On
appeal, held purchaser holding land ii} excess of I 2. 50 acres is ·not an
objection relating to any irregularity or mistakes. in publishing and conducting D
sale-Not barred by Rule 285-K-High Court erred in holding that Section
154 not applicable to Court sale-Confirmation of sale order set aside-
Appe/lant to be treated as owner and thus entitled to possession.

Words and Phrases :
E
"Satisfied"-Meaning of in the context ofSection 285-J ofu:P. Zamindari
Abolition and land Reforms Rules, 1952.
.,
The appellant mortgaged her land to the Bank for borrowing loan. On
default in repayment of loan, recovery certificate was issued and auction sale p
was conducted. The said auction sale was confirmed by the Assistant Collector
after obtaining an affidavit from the purchaser that even after the purchase,
his holding remained belo~ 12.50 acres. The appellant filed her objections
before the Commissioner that if acres 8.50 are added to the existing holding
of acres 5.00 held by the auction purchaser, his holding would exceed acres
12.50 as prescribed under Section 154(1) of the U.P. Zatnindari Abolition and G
Land Reforms· Act; 1950 and no notice of sale was given to her. The
Commissioner gave no finding on the first objection and dismissed the second
objection on the ground that the objection was not taken within thirty days of
sale. The writ petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed by tlie High
Court holding that the restriction under sec. 154 of the Act did not apply to H
27
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A involuntary sales and even if the purchaser's holding go in excess of acres
12.50 it would be for the Gaon Sabha to claim the excess. Hence the present
appeal

Allowing the appeal, this Court

B HELD : 1. The confirmation of sale order passed by the Assistant
Collector and the order of the Commissioner rejecting the objections of the
appellant are vitiated. In the· absence of a confirmatory order, the sale is
declared as otiose and ineffective and the appellant shall be treated as owner
of the land-and entitled to possession thereof. (37-C; 38-D)

C 2.1. The objection that after the court sale, acres 12.50 vested in the
purchaser, is not an objection concerning irregularity or mistake in the
pnblishing or conducting the sale. The procedure for proclamation of sale is
contained in Rule 282 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules,
1952 and the procedure for sale is set out in Rules 285-A to 285-H. None of
D them refers to section 154(1) of the U.P. Zamindar; Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 which deals with the restriction of a purchaser holding
land in excess of Acres 12.50 after a sale or gift. Thus the objection raised
by the appellant that the Collector at the stage of confirmation has not applied
his mind to the question whether after the Revenue sale, the purchaser would
be holding land in excess of acres 12.50 is not an objection relating to any ·
E irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale and hence it is
not barred Ly Rule 285-K. [33-G; 34-B)

2.2. Even if the appellant's application before the Commissioner is to
be treated as not maintainable, the appellant can challenge the order of
confirmation on the ground of violation of the requirement of section 154 of
F the Act and the Court can quash the said order since it was not dealing with
any irregularity or mistake in the proclamation or conduct of sale, or with
any fraud in sale. The Court was only dealing with an irregularity arising
out of the con_firmation order passed under section 285-J in noticing section
154(1) and this can be corrected directly in writ jurisdiction. [37-B-C)
G
3. The High Court erred in holding that the provisions of section 154
were not applicable to court sales. A statutory duty is cast on the Collector to
keep section 154 of the Act in mind at the stage of confirmation of sale. Rule
285-J requires the Collector to "satisfy" himself whether the purchase of
land in question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the provisions
H of section 154. Obviously, it is intended that those who purchase in Revenue
SHANTI DEVI v. STATE 29
sales should not have a greater advantage over those who obtain property by A
transfers inter-vivas. The High Court's attention was not drawn to the express
lauguage of Rule 285-J which refers to section 154. The High Court therefore
proceeded on the assumption that section 154 did not apply to inyoluntary sales
and it also thought that it is for the Gaon Sabha to intervene. It cannot be said
that in Revenue sale it is only for the Gaon Sabha to claim the excess from
the purchaser. (35-D; 36'-H; 37-A) B

Kr.ipa Shankar v. Director of Consolidation, (1979) 4 SCC 199,.·
distinguished.

Gaon Sabha v. [)y. Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, (1968) C
R.D. 168, disapproved.

4~ The mere statement of fact by the purchaser on the affidavit that his
holdings did not exceed acres 12.SO does not amount to "satisfaction" by the
Collector as required by Rule 285-J of the Act The word ·"satisfied" means
that tliere must be evidence of application of mind by the authority concerned. D
Merely attaching the affidavit of the· purchaser does not amount to application
of mind but on the other hand, aniounts to non-application of inind.(36'-F-G)

5. At this distance of time there is no question of remitting the matter
to the Assistant Collector who passed the COIJfirmation order. The appellant
has deposited the amount as directed by this Court and that the .Commissioner, E
irrespective of the points in issue, was inclined to give a chance to the
appellant to deposit the money. Thus it is a fit case in which instead of going
v into the question whether the sale was void, the sale should not be confirmed.
Consequently the appellant who has been in possessfon during the proceedings
throughout by obtaining an order of status quo from this Court should be
allowed to retain the property. (37-~Fl .F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6240 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.97 of the Allahabad High Court
in C.W.P. No; 6557of1983.
G
R.K. Kapoor, P. Verma. S.K. Srivastava, B.R. Kapur and Anis Ahmed
Khan for the Appellant. ·

Tripurari Ray for Mukul Mudgal for the Respondents.

The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A M, JAGANNADHA RAO, J. Leave granted.

The appellant filed objections before the Divisional Commissioner,
Lucknow in regard to the sale of her agricultural land in an extent of 8.50 acres
held on 25.2.1982 and confirmed on 2.8.1982 under the provisions of Section
279 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950,
B (hereinafter called the Act). The Commissioner, by order dated 26.9.1983
dismissed: the objections. The writ petition of the appellant questioning the
same was dismissed by the High Court on 7 .5.1997. This appeal arises out of
the said order.

The sale was. conducted for recovery of arrears of Bank loan in a sum
C of Rs. 11,619.73 (together with interest) due to the Central Bank of India,
Branch Sitapur pursuant to a certificate for recovery issued under Section
llA of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The revenue sale was for Rs.
13,000. The land was under mortgage to the Bank for a loan of Rs. 7,000
obtained' for purchase of a pump-set. The auction 5ale dated 25.2.1982 was
D confirmed by the Assistant Collector on 2.8.1982 after obtaining an affidavit
from the purchaser that even after this purchase, the purchaser's holding
remained below acres 12.50. During the pendency of this SLP, the appellant
was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. one lakh by order dated 16.6.1997 and
the same has been deposited in this Court. By another order dated 15. 7.1997,
the said amount has been directed to be invested in a short term deposit.
E
The Commissioner set out the appellant's objections and to the
purchaser's plea but did not give findings on the various points except the
one relating to service of notlces of sale. He held that notices were issued
to the appellant regarding attachment and sale, the sale was adjourned and
in regard to the notice for sale on 25.2.1984 the same was refused by the
F appellant. He said that in the absence of objection to the sale within 30 days
of sale, the sale had to be confirmed by the Assistant Collector and this was
done on 2.8.1982. Though a contention, among others, was raised that if acres
8.50 are added to the existing holding of acres 5.00 held by the auction
purchaser, his holding would exceed acres 12.50, as prescribed under_ section
G 154( I) of the Act, no finding was given by the Commissioner on this question.
He also said that before him, the objector was given a fresh opportunity on
sympathetic grounds to pay debt but the same was not paid.

In the writ petition, the appellant raised all the objections that were
raised before the Commissioner. The learned Judge held that notice of sale
H proceedings was given to the appellant, the same was not availed of, that in ·
- -
SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 31
fact, the sale notice for 25.2.1982 was refused by the appellant and-nonewas A
·present on appellant's behalf at the auction. The I-Jigh Court also noticed that
the Commissioner gave a fresh opportunity to the appellant to pay the loan
amount butthe same was not availed of. So far as Section 154(1) of the Act
is concerned, the High Court felt that in view of the decision of.this Court
in Kripa Shankar v. Di~ector of Consolidation, [1979] 4 SCC 1-99, even if
the purchaser's holding would go in excess ofacres 12:50, after.the purchase, B
it wouldb~_for the Gaon Sabha to.Claim the excess from the purcha5er and _
this was because of section 163 of the Act.permitting taking over of the -
excess by the Gaon Sabha. Such a provision showed that the sale iri favour
of a person whoseholding would exceed acres 12.50 after the purchase was
not void but was voidable at the; instance of the Gaon Sabha who could take C
over pos.session under section l.63. In other words, the High ~ourt assumed
that se.ction 163 was in' the stattite book as on 25.2.1982 or2.8.1982. This, as
• we shall show, is n~t correct. Reliance was also placed on Gaon Sabha v. Dy..
• - Director ofConsolidation, U.P. Lucknow, [1968] R.D. 168 by the High Court
to say that restriction urider Section 154 did not apply to involuntary sales
artd that the right of .the State to acquire land in excess of acres 12.5_0 from D
the purchaser always_ remained. _Learned Judge also held that Section _ l 54
dealt with transfers inter vivas ahd _did not deal with the situation which might
ai'ise out of inv~luntary sale~. _The writ .petition was dismissed. It is against
thiS judgment that this appeal has _been preferred.
E
In this appeal, the same contentions which were raised before the High
Court were' raised. We have heard the counsel on .the both sides. ·

The main _points for consideration are whether the appellant who did
not file tibjection under Rule 285 H or I within 30 days of sale could file an
objectio~ .after confirmation that thr Assistant Collector has not given effect F
.to section 154( 1). of the Act and whether there was non-application of mind
by the Assistant Collector, at the stage .of _confirmation to this question? If
. so, what relief is to be given?

- _ So far as the filing of ari application for setting aside the sale is concerned,
the sagie has to- be filed wi_thin 30 days of_ sale under Rule 285-·H of the U.P.' G
Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Ruies, 1952 (hereinafter called the' Rules')
(which is akin t~ Order2 l Rule 89 CPC) or under Rule 285~1 (which is akin to.
Order2 l Rule 90 CPC). Rule 285-1 refers to material irregularity or mistake in
publishing or conducting the sale and proof of substantial injury by reason of
-the irregularity or mistake: If no application is filed under Rule 285-H or! within H
32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 30 days of sale, the sale shall become final and sale certificate will be issued
under Rule 285-J. If no application is filed under Rule 285-1 within the time
-
allowed, all Claims on the ground of irregularity or mistake in publishing and
conducting the sale shall be barred subject of course to establishing fraud in
a civil court by way of a regular suit. We shall go into these provisions ii:J. greater
B detail, a little later.

In view of the finding of the Commissioner as well as the High Court
that the appellant had notice of the sale proceedings and that she had refused
the sale notice for the sale on 25.2.1982, it will not be permissible for the
appellant to urge the question <if absence of notice of the sale on 25.2.1982.
C If therefore the appellant is to be treated as having notice of sale, then the
non-filing of the application under Rule 285-1 within 30 days of sale, will
preclud~ any objection being raised on the ground of' 'material irregularity or
mistake in publishing or conducting the sale", even if we assume that
the value of the property of acres 8.50 as on 25.2.1982 was assessed to be
Rs. 43,664 on ·14.12.1982 by the revenue authorities and even ifthat can be
D treated as proof of substantial prejudice. So this question is foreclosed.

So far as the plea that the pump-set and buffaloes should have been
first proceeded against before proceeding with the sale of immovable property
under Section 279 of the U.P. Act, 1951, even assuming the point could be
raised after sale, the respondents have raised a plea that in view of Section
E 282(3) of the Act, clauses (a) to (o) of Section 60(1) CPC are attracted and
these were not attachable even. Question arises whether the pump-set is an
'il)1plement of husbandry' belonging to an agriculturist and exempt from
attachment and sale under sub-claUS\! (b) of Section 60(.1). We notice that
there is some conflict between various High Courts in that behalf and we do
p not therefore propose to go into that question. We find that the case can be
disposed of on another ground.

We may here also state that the order dated 20.8.1982 dealing with
confirmation of sale by the Collector merely says that an affidavit has been
filed by the auction purchaser that after sale, his holding would not exceed
G acres 12.50 and that the affidavit is attached to the confirmation order. The
Assistant Collector merely states as follows:

"The affidavit of 12 Yi acres has been given by the purchaser and
the same is attached."'

H Now in the application filed by .the appellant before the Commissioner, it had
- SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]

been stated by the appellant in para I 0 and 11 that the purchaser was already
holding acres 5.06 in her name in Village Jamauli. This was disputed by the
33
A

auction purchaser. It is to be pointed out that in the SLP grourids (ground
No. 14) it is stated that a photo· copy of the Khatauni of the village Jamauli
pertaining to khata No. 325 was brought on record to show that the auction
purchaser was already owning acres 5.06. In the-counter filed by the purchaser
befor;; us, it is stated (para 68) that the appellant's allegation in this behalf B
is not correct and that the purchaser does not possess more than Ac. 12.50
and that an affidavit to that effect was filed before the Assistant Collector.
The allegation that in khata 325 of this village .it is shown that the purchaser
owned 5.06 acre, is denied. We have already stated that the Commissioner has
not given a finding on this issue though he has referred to the rival contention C
in this behalf. The High Court, as already stated, said Section 154 deals with
restriction on· sales or gifts inter vivas and does not apply to execution sales
and that in any .event, it was for the Gaon Sabha to recover the excess land,
' if any, from the purchaser.

Before we go into main aspect we shall first clear some procedural ' D
hurdles arising out of Rule. 285-K. The question is whether the appellant could
have raised this question arising out of rule 285-J read with Sec~ion J 54(1)
after the confirmation of sale and without filing any objection within 30 days
of the sale? We shall first refer to Rule 285-K.

"Rule 285-K: Ifno application under Rule 215-I is made within the E
tiine ·allowed therefore, all claims on th; ground of irregularity or
mistake in publishing or conductfog the sale shall ·be barred :

Provided that ~othing contained in this rule shall bar the institution
of a suit in the civil court for the purpose of setting aside the sale on
·the ground of fraud". ·· F
In our vi~w, the objection-that after the count sale vested Ac.res 12.50
· in the purchaser, she will hold. land in excess of Ac. 12.50 is not an objection
concerning any "irregularity or mistake in the publishing or conducting the
sale". We may state that the procedure for proclamation of sale is contained
G
in Rule 282 and the procedure for sale is set out in Rules 285, 285-A to ,Rule
285-G:.None of them refers to Section 154(1) of the Act which deals with the
restriction of a purchaser holding land in excess of Ac. 12.50 after a 'sale or
gift. The next rule, Rule 285-H deals with filing of an application by the perso~
whose property is sold, for setting aside sale on deposit (corresponding to
Order 21 Rule 89 CPC) and after that, Rule 285-1 _deals with che filing of an H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A application, on the ground of material irregularity or mistake in publishing or
conducting the sale. It is only when we come to a latter stage of the
proceedings, namely, after ihe expiry of 30 days from date of sale, that is, the
stage of Rule 285-1 that it requires the confirmation-authority to be ''satisfied''
that the_re was no contravention of Section 154 of the Act. In our view,
B therefore, any objection raised by the person whose property has been sold
to the effect that the Collector has not, at the stage of confirmation applied
his mind to the question whether after the revenue sale, the purchaser would
be holding land in excess of Ac. 12.50; is not objection relating to any
irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale and hence it is not
barred by Rule 285-K. The sale here was over on 25.2.1982. The confirmation
C order was passed on 2.8.1982. Rule 285-J read with Section-154(1) therefore
raises an issue which relates to a factor which the Collector has to· be
'satisfied' about before passing an order of confirmation. In our view, Section
285-K does not bar this objection.

This aspect becomes clearer if we read the language of Rule 285-J in
D respect of the duties of the Collector at the time of 'confirmation' of sale. It
reads :

"Rule 285-J : On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale,
if no such application as is mentioned in Rule 285-H or Rule 285-J, has
been made or if such application has been made and rejected by the
E Collector or the Commissioner, the Collector shall pass an order
confirming the sale after satisfying himself that the purchase of land
In question by the bidder would not be in contravention of the
provisions of Section 154. Every order passed under this rule shall
be final."
F It is clear that a statutory duty is cast on the Collector to keep Section
154 in mind at the stage of confirmation of sale. If it is an objection as to non
application of mind to a provision statutorily relevant at the stage of
confirmation, the .objection cannot be .treated. as an objection relating to the
irregularity or mistake at or before the stage of sale. That is why Rule 285-
G K will not come in the way.

The question also arises that if no objection was filed within 30 days
of sale under Rule 285-1 or J, then no other application could have been filed
before the Commissioner after the confirmation. Assuming it to be so, we are
of the view that the writ petition filed by the appellant can be treated as a
H challenge to the order of the Assistant Collector that he did not apply
-· SHANTI DEVI 11. ST A TE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, 1)

relevant factors which he was bound to take into account while confirming
the order. The point raised under section 154(1) does not refe~ to 'fraud' and
35
A

therefore remedy of suit mentioned in proviso to Rule 285K is not attracted.
. . '
Once the above hurdle is crossed; the next question is whether such
an issue relevant to Sectionl 54 can be raised in relation to execution sales.
Section 154 of the. Act deals with restrictions on transfer by a bhumidar. I~ B
reads as follows :-

"Section 154. Restrictions' on transfer by a bhumidar :· (I) Save as
provided in sub-section (2), no bhumidar shall have a right to transfer
by sale or gift, any land other than tea gardens to any person where
the transferee shall, as a result of such sale or gift, become entitled C
to land whic~ together with land, if any, held by his family will in the
aggregate, exceed 5.0586 hectares (12.50 acres) in Uttar Pradesh''.·

No doubt, there is no definitio\l of sale in Section 3 of the· Act which
deals with the meaning of several words. But, it has to be noticed that Rule ·
285-lrequires' the Collector to ··satisfy' himself whether the purchase of land D
·.in .question by t.he bidder would i;10t be in. contravention of the provisions
of Section 154. Obviously, it is intended that those who purchase in revenue
sales should not have greater advantage over those who obtain property by
transfers· inter-vivas.' · . ·'
E
In our vfow, therefore, the High Courtwas wrong.in thinking that the
provisions ofSection 154 were applicable to court sales. If the ruling in Gaon
Sabhav. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Lucknow, (1968) R.D. 16·8~ relied
upon by the High Court expressed such a view, then it must be held to be
not. correct in law in view of the express reference to section 154 in Rule 285
J. Obviously, ,the ~ttention of the High Court in the present case was. not F
drawn to rule 285-J. •

For the same reason, it is not possible to accept the view, - at any rate
. so far as revenue sales are concerned-that.it will only be for the Gaon Sabha
to claim the excess from the purchaser: It is true; while dealing with a private G
transf~r by way of gift, such aview. was expressed by this Court in Kripa
Shankar v .. Director of Consolidation, (1979) 4 SCC 199 but that case related
to a gift deed dated 19 .12.1964 and this Court referred.to Section 163 of the
· Act which. enabled the Gaon Sabh~. to eject the trans.feror from the excess land
and held that the gift as such in that case was therefore not void. In that case,
this Court pointed out .that in conneqtion with ·some oiher type of transfers H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A covered .by Section 166, the legislature had, in contrast, declared such
transactions to be void whereas no such words were used in Section 154 or
Section 163 and section 163 permitted the Gaon Sabha to acquire the excess
land for the transferee who detained the excess through a sale or gift inter
vivos.

B The above case is clearly distinguishable because we are here not
concerned with the question whether the Court sale is void or voidable. We
are here concerned with a statutory provision contained in Rule 285-J which
mandates the Collector, to be "satisfied" about a certain factual position at
the stage of confirming a sale.

C We may here point out that after Kirpa Shankar 's case (supra) in 1979,
Section 163 permitting Gaon Sabha to take over the excess land was deleted
by U.P. Act 20of1982 w.e.f. 3.6.1981 and Section 166 was introduced w.e.f.
3.6.1981 which said that : "Every transfer made in contravention of the
provisions of this Act, shall be void". Obviously, Kirpa Shankar 's case
D cannot apply to post 3.6.81 sales. The case befor~ tis deals with a sale dated
25.2.)982 and confirmation dated 2.8.1982. We do not however propose to go
into this aspect because it is sufficient for the appellant to rely upon the duty
cast on the confirmation authority in Rule 285-J to take section 154 into
account and prove that that duty was not discharged.

E The question then is whether the Assistant Coll\)ctor was 'satisfied' on
the material before him that the purchaser did not contravene Section 154( I).
In our view, the statement in the confirmation order by the Collector that the
affidavit of the purchaser that she will not, after purchase, exceed Ac. 12.50
"attached" to the confirmation order, does not amount to 'satisfaction' of the
officer, which was to be arrived at, on an examination of the relevant revenue
F records of the area or village concerned. The mere statement of fact by the
purchaser by an affidavit before the Collector that the purchaser did not
exceed Ac. 12.50 does not help. The word 'satisfied' means that there must
be evidence of application of mind by the authority concerned. Merely
attaching the affidavit of the purchaser, in our view, does not amount to
G application of mind but on the other hand, amounts to non-application of
mind. As already stated, the Commissioner merely referred to the contention
of purchaser that her holding, after purchase, did not exceed Ac. 12.50. The
Commissioner, also referred to the appellant's contention to the contrary. He
did not give any finding on this behalf. The High Court's attention, as already
stated, was not drawn to the express language of Rule 285-J which refers to
H Section 154. The High Court therefore proceeded on the assumption that
SHANTI DEVI v. STATE [M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 37

Section 154 did not apply to involuntary sales and it also thought that it was A
for the Gaon Sabha to intervene. It did not enter any finding 'regarding the
'satisfaction' of the Assistant Collector as required by Rule 285-J. As stated ·
earlier, even if the appellant's application before the Commissioner is to be
treated as not maintainable, it is open to the appellant to challenge the order
of the Confirmation dated 2.8.82 on the ground of violation of the requirement
of section 154 and we can read the said o~der and quash it in as. much as we B
are not dealing with irregularity or mistake in the proclamation or conduct of
sale or with fraud in the conduct of sale. We are only dealing with an illegality
arising out of the confirmation order passed under section 285-J in not
noticing section 154(1) and this can be corrected directly,in writ jurisdiction.

In the result, we hold that the confirmation of sale order dated 2.8.1982
c
passed ):Jy the Assistant Collector and the order of the Commissioner dated
26.9.1983 rejecting the objections of the appellant are vitiated. Thejudgment
of the High Court, for the reasons given above, is also set aside.

Finally, we come to the question whether the matter must be remitted D
to the confirmation authority to go into thi~ question. We are of the view that
this is not a case where, at this distance of time, we should remand the case
to· the Commis'sioner. There is no question of remitting the matter to the
Assistant Collector who passed the·confirmation order to go into this question.
Having heard the counsel and taken notice of the fact that the appellant has
now deposited Rs. I lakh as directl'.d 'by this Court and taking note of the fact . E
that the Commissioner, irrespective of the points·in issue, was also inclined
to give a chance to the ~ppellant io deposit the money, we feel that this is
a fit case where instead of going into the question whether the sale was void
in view of the section 166 which was introduced w.e.f. 3.6.81-the sale should
not be confirmed and that consequently the appellant who has been in F
possession during the proceedings throughout· and who also obtained .an
order of status quo from this Court on.16.6.97 should be allowed to retain. the
property.

The amount of Rs: I lakh has been invested in short term deposit in this
Court. The same shall, on maturity, be sent to the High Court to the credit G
of civil writ petition No. 6557 of 1983. The amount due as per the sale warrant
amount with interest will be ascertained and the same shall first be disbursed .
to the concerned revenue authority, for satisfying the certificate issued to the
said authority under Section 11-A of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1978.
The High Court will ascertain the amount payable under the Certificate,
together with interest, if any, as stated in the sale proceedings .and for H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A satisfying the costs of the proceeding as incurred oy the Govt. If the amount
in deposit now, transferred to the High Court is not sufficient, the appellant
has to make good the deficiency. The amount deposited by the purchaser
shall be returned to her together with interest at 12% from the date of deposit.
The interest amount payable to the purchaser shall be disbursed out of the
amount now being sent by this Court to the High Court. If after meeting the
B demand payable under the Certificate and costs to the government, there is
no balance left to pay the interest component payable to the purchaser as
stated above on the amount the purchaser may have deposited in the revenue
court the appellant shall again have to make good the deficiency. In respect
of any such further sums payable by the appellant, as aforesaid, if need be,
C the High Court will grant reasonable time to the appellant. If of course, the
amount now sent to the High Court is sufficient to meet all these directions-,
no question of further payment by the appellant will arise.

Jn the absence of a confirmatory order, the sale dated 2.5.1982 is declared
as otiose and. ineffective and the appellant shalt be treated as owner and
D entitled to the possession thereof. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

S.V.K.I. Appeal disposed of.