Haji SEWA GUL vs SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition regarding land auction proceedings. The petitioner had purchased land belonging to a Lambardar, who was a defaulter in land revenue, through an auction. However, the auction proceedings were finalized and mutation was attested by authorities below the Commissioner, bypassing the mandatory requirement of confirmation by the Commissioner. The Board of Revenue subsequently set aside the auction, noting that the District Collector lacked the competence to confirm the sale and that no sale certificate had been issued as required by law. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to restore auction proceedings that were fundamentally illegal, despite the petitioner's claim of innocent mistake. The Supreme Court held that the procedural illegalities were serious and violated the statutory purpose of the relevant provisions. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to restore illegal proceedings, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Is a High Court justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction to restore auction proceedings that suffer from serious statutory illegalities?
- Does the failure to obtain confirmation of a land auction from the Commissioner, as required by the Land Revenue Act, render the auction proceedings illegal?
- Can a District Collector confirm a land auction where the statute mandates confirmation by the Commissioner?
- Section 102, Land Revenue Act 1967
- Section 104, Land Revenue Act 1967
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal of petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, in a matter dealt with under the Land Revenue Act, by the Revenue authorities.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Rashtool Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 18, a Lambardar was declared defaulter in land revenue. His land was proposed to be sold as means of recovery of the amount. Accordingly, an auction was held wherein the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is further stated that although the proceedings of auction were to be sent to the Commissioner for confirmation, on account of innocent mistake, they were completed/concluded at a lower level and thus the mutation was also attested in favour of the petitioner. The respondents' side according to the learned counsel, filed a suit challenging the auction proceedings and obtained a temporary injunction which was set aside by the appellate Court. The respondents' revision in the High Court, however, was withdrawn presumably because their grievance was removed by the Board of Revenue setting aside the auction, through an ex parte order. The petitioner's review before the Board of Revenue having failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal.
3. As analysed by the learned counsel, the reasons which prevailed with the Board of Revenue passing the order impugned before the High Court were: that no report was submitted to the Commissioner nor did he confirm the auction as required by S. 102/104 of the Land Revenue Act; the District Collector was not competent to confirm the auction; and, no sale certificate was issued.
4. When questioned as to whether by acceptance of petitioner's writ petition on the grounds urged before the High Court regarding (mainly) the conduct of the respondents and the proceedings initiated by them, was it proper for the High Court to restore the proceedings and orders set aside by the Board of Revenue, which were obviously illegal, he frankly stated that the mistakes committed by the staff lower to the Commissioner, were innocent mistakes. Be that as it may, without giving any verdict with regard to the bona fides or otherwise of the mistakes, they did amount to illegalities which keeping in view the purpose of the relevant provisions, were very serious. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in case like the present one not to exercise the writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who was seeking the restoration of illegal proceedings and orders. This petition fails. Therefore, leave to appeal is refused.