Allahabad High Court
MOHD AFZALversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that immovable property cannot be auctioned under Section 14 of the Act and directed that any representation filed under Section 15 be decided by the District Magistrate.
Summary
Petitioner Mohd Afzal challenged the attachment of his property by orders dated 17.02.2026 and 17.06.2023 issued by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, contending that the property was purchased from his own income and therefore not subject to attachment. He feared that the attached immovable property, including a mango grove, would be auctioned and sought a direction that the District Magistrate decide a representation he intends to file under Section 15 of the same Act. The Additional Advocate General raised no objection to the prayer. The Court observed that the Act permits sale of perishable fruits but does not allow auction of immovable property attached under Section 14, and directed that any representation filed under Section 15 be decided expeditiously by the District Magistrate. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether immovable property attached under Section 14 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti‑Social Activities (Prevention) Act can be auctioned.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a representation under Section 15 of the Act and obtain relief from the District Magistrate.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- attachment
- auction
- immovable property
- Section 14
- Section 15
- U.P. Gangsters Act
- criminal miscellaneous writ petition
- district magistrate
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6304 of 2026
Mohd Afzal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Indra Bhan Yadav, Vijay Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J.
A supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.
Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Indra
Bhan Yadav, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikash Goswami, AGA for the
State.
The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is against the orders
dated 17.02.2026 and 17.06.2023 passed by the respondent no.2, i.e., District
Magistrate, Saharanpur in Case No.03 of 2026 registered under Section 14
of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The
claim of the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner attached through
the aforesaid orders was purchased from his own income and was not a
property which could be covered under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act.
We are not entering into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner as
during the argument, the counsel for the petitioner stated that he shall file a
representation under Section 15 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 before the District Magistrate and prays
that an order be passed directing the District Magistrate to decide the same.
Sri Manish Goyal, the Additional Advocate General has no objections to the
aforesaid prayer.
The representation has to be filed against the order dated 17.02.2026 as the
petitioner states that a representation has already been filed against the order
dated 17.06.2023.
CRLP No. 6304 of 2026
2
It is the apprehension of the petitioner that the District Magistrate may
auction the property attached by order dated 17.02.2026. In support of his
apprehension, the petitioner has annexed an order dated 04.04.2026 issued
by the Deputy District Magistrate, Behat, District Saharanpur which notifies
auction of the fruits of the Mango Grove allegedly owned by the petitioner
and which is part of the property mentioned in the different orders passed
under Section 14 of the Act as noted above.
There is no prohibition on the District Magistrate or the Administrator
appointed by him under Section 14 of the Act for sale of standing crops /
fruits in any grove as the same are perishable items but the Administrator
shall act in accordance with law and maintain the accounts of the sale
proceeds. It is clarified that U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 does not permit the State to auction any immovable
property attached under Section 14 of the Act.
As the Additional Advocate General has no objections to the prayer made by
the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, the petition is
disposed of with a direction that in case, the petitioner files a representation
under Section 15 of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986, the District Magistrate, Saharanpur shall decide the
same in accordance with law, expeditiously.
So far as the apprehension regarding auction of the property by the petitioner
is concerned, the observation regarding the same has already been made
above.
The writ petition is disposed of.
May 6, 2026
Sanjeet
(Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SANJEET KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…