RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.versusU.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

                       [2010] 8 S.C.R. 220

A                 RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC.
                                 v.
            U.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
                  CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.
                 (Civil Appeal No. 5177 of 2010)
B                          JULY 8, 2010
          [S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., AND AFTAB ALAM, J.]

        Land laws:
c      U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952
  - r. 285-D - Auction sale - Allottees of Government land in
  arrears of land revenue - Recovery of government dues -
  Auction sale of Government plots in favour of highest bidders
D - Set aside by High Court on the ground of violation of r. 285-
  D - On appeal, held: Law under which the auction sale
  proceedings were held was deficient - Auction proceedings
  appear to be full of anomalies - On the contrary, bidders did
  not deposit twenty five percent of the bid amount immediately
  after the auction and there was no receipt showing payment
E immediately after the auction - Regarding one plot, sale was
  confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the
  bidder even without payment of full price of the plot - In the
  guise of recovery of government dues, said bidders in
  collusion with their abettors in government departments tried
F to grab government lands - Thus, auction sale of plots in
  favour of the said bidders was illegal, bad and malafide -
  Bidders directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs each as exemplary costs
  - There is need to update UPZALR Act and UPZALR Rules
  since they are completely deficient for dealing with land
G holdings in highly urbanised and industrialised regions - U.P.
  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - s. 279 -
  Cost - Legislation.
        The two pieces of government land-A and B, were

H                               220
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE              221
        INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD.

allotted to BSPL and SAPL respectively. Both BSPL and        A
SAPL were in arrears of land revenue. For the recovery
of the government dues, the said lands were auctioned.
The auction sale of two pieces of land was made in favour
of the appellants. The High Court set aside the auctio1n
sale. It held that the auction sale of the two plots was a   B
nullity because the appellants did not deposit one fourth
of their bid accounts immediately on the conclusion of
the auction but deposited the requisite amounts on the
following day.
   In appeal to this Court, the respondents-BSPL and         C
SAPL contended •that no auCtion was ever held and the
whole thing was mere paper work.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
     HELD: 1. It is evident that the law under which the D
auction sale ,proceedings were held was itself quite
deficient. But the enumeration .of the shortcomings and
the lacunae in the provisions of.an archaic law is not to.
say that the auction proceedings of the two plots were
otherwise fair and proper and suffered from some E
irregularities only due to the flaws in the law. On the
contrary, there is no doubt that the auction sale of. the
two plots in favour of the appellants was illegal,
fraudulent and collusive. In the guise of recovery of the
government dues, the two appellants in coltusion with F
their abettors in the government departments were trying
to grab government lands and they almost succeeded but
for the interference by the High Court. Though the High.
Court set aside the auction sale of the two plots on the
technical ground of violation of Rule 285-D, on a G
consideration of the overall facts and circumstances; the
                                                a
auction sale was bad and rrialafide and was blatant
attempt to grab the public land. [Paras 25, 32 and 39] [241-
B-C; 245-E; 249-B]
    2. The disposal of public property partakes the. H
    222     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 8 S.C.R

A character of trust and the government or the public
  authorities are obliged to make all attempts to obtain the
  best available market price while disposing of public
  properties. [Para 37] [248-E-F]
    · Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC
B 267; V. Purushotham Rao vs. Union of India (2001) 10 SCC
  305; Aggarwal and Modi Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. New Delhi
  Municipal Council (2007) 8 SCC 75; Meerut Development
  Authority vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6
  SCC 171; Anil Kumar Srivastava vs. State of UP (2004) 8
c sec 671 - referred to.
         3.1 Under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
    Reforms Rules, 1952 the only mode for advertisement of
    auction-sale is by affixation of the Sale Proclamation at
0   a conspicuous place in the village where the property is
    located and by beat of drum. There is no provision of
    advertisement in the newspapers or by any other means
    to spread the information about the proposed auction on
    a large scale. There is no provision in the U.P. Zamindari
E   Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 or the 1952 Rules
    for fixation of reserve price before the property is put up
    for auction sale. However, the Collector of the District
    regularly notifies "circle rate" for different types of land
    and different locations. This circle rate is primarily used
    for computation of stamp duty for registration of
F   document. In 2007 instructions were given to confirm
    sale only above the market price. There is also no
    provision enabling the authorities to bar someone with
    a criminal record or against whom there are tax dues or
    government dues of any other kinds from taking part in
G   the sale of land by the government. [Paras 23 and 24)
    [240-D-H; 241-A]
     3.2 In the departmental enquiry, the version given by
  HS-AWBN that the auction proceedings with respect to
H SAPL and BSPL were not held in the Tehsil office but
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE             223
        INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD.
papers were prep.ared at the residence of the ADM, A
appears to be highly probable. The documents
concerning the auction sale of the two plots in the
government record taken at their face value, the auction
proceedings of the plots appear to be full of anomalies.
No notice or information about the attachment or sale of B
the two plots was given to the UPSIDC. No attention was
paid to the claim of the Canara Bank that it had the first
charge over plot no.2/1 which was given in mortgage to
the bank as security for the loan advanced by it to BSPL.
The Sale Proclamations did not indicate the area of the c
plots or the nature of the rights therein that would be the
subject matter of the sale. There was practically no public
advertisement (no newspaper publication or any thing of
that sort) to give wider information to the general public
about the auction. The only public announcement was D
done by the process server going to the site and calling
out loudly that the two plots would be put to auction sale
on the specified date for non-payment of government
dues and asking the people to come for the auction in
large numbers. No reserve price for the plots in question
was indicated either in the Sale Proclamations or even in E
the Memos of Auction. The information about the stay
order passed by he High Court was completely ignored.
There is nothing to show that after the government dues
were satisfied, the balance of the sale price was refunded
to the land holders, the two private respondents BSPL F
and SAPL. [Paras 16 and 17) [234-F-H; 235-B-H; 236-A-
 B; 237-8-D]
     3.3 Rule 285-D of the UPZALR Rules requires the
highest bidder to deposit immediately twenty five percent   G
of the amount bid by him. This was one of the conditions
mentioned in the Auction Memos. In the two Auction
Memos it was stated that the highest bidders for the two
plots, namely RK and ML had deposited one fourth of
their respective bid amounts immediately after the          H
   224     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010) 8 S.C.R.

A auction. But the payment recorded in the Auction Memos
  is proved to be wrong and incorrect by reference to the
  Government Records. From entries 39 and 40 in the
  Register, where the payments were entered, it is clear that
  twenty five percent of the bid amounts for the two plots
B in question were deposited on June 16 and not
  immediately after the auction held on June 15, 1992 as
  claimed by the appellants. The counsel appearing for the
  appellants kept telling this Court for days on end the
  appellants had receipts in their possession showing that
c the deposits were made on June 15 itself.
  Notwithstanding the fact that the receipts were not filed
  in the High Court and neither were those enclosed with
  the SLP at the time of its filing, the counsel was allowed
  as much time as he wanted for producing those receipts.
  In the end he said that the receipts were misplaced and
0
  the appellants were not able to find them out. There is no
  doubt that all the time the counsel was wrongly briefed
  by the appellants. No receipts were produced in court
  because there were, in fact, no receipts showing payment
  immediately after the auction. The entries in Register no.4
E shows that the balance seventy five percent of the bid
  (Rs.6,30,000/-) for plot no.2/1 of BSPL was never
  deposited at all. In other words, the sale of plot no.2/1
  was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour
  of the appellant even without payment of the full price of
F the plot. [Paras 26, 27 and 28) [241-D-F; 242-E-H; 243-A-
  B]
      3.4 The appellants and their abettors inside the
  revenue department of the government were so far able
G to show that for recovery of the Government dues the
  plots of land of BSPL (2/1) and SAPL (2/2) were put to
  auction on June 15, 1992 in which the two appellants
  were the highest bidders. The next stage was the
  confirmation of the sale after dealing with the objections.
H Even before the date of the auction the concerned
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE              225
        INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD.
authorities were given information about the stay order A
passed by the High Court in respect of plot no.2/1. At that
time they paid no heed to it but later on certified copies
of the order were produced. On June 18, 1992 certified
copies of the stay order passed by the High Court were
submitted before the Tehsildar, Dadri, both by the private B
respondent and the Canara Bank. This was a real
impediment to overcome before the sales could be ·
confirmed and the appellants and their abettors inside the
government could succeed in their designs. The High
Court order was put away in a highly disingenuous way. c
A note was put up in which referring to the cause title of
the writ petition, where the address of the writ petitioner,
Mis Bramic Suri Pvt. Ltd. was shown as "Gyani Border,
Post Office Chikambarpur, District Ghaziabad", it was
declared that the High Court Order was with respect to 0
some other property, situate at the site of the address
given in the writ petition. On June 30, 1992 the note was
perused by the District Magistrate and on the same date
it was approved by the ADM (F & R). No one cared to see
that Annexure 1 to the writ petition was a photostat copy E
of the very same Sale Proclamation on the basis of which
the auction sale of plot no.2/1 was held and in the writ
petition the prayer was to quash the Sale Proclamation
at annexure 1 and in the stay petition the prayer was to
stay its operation. It is not known whether this matter was
brought to the notice of the High Court and whether the F
High Court took any action in the matter. It can only be
said that this is one of the crudest manipulations coming
to the notice of this Court [Para 29] [243-B-H; 244-A-B]
     3.5 The plot no.2/2 was put up for auction safe for     G
recovery of the demand of Central Excise dues raised by
the Excise Superintendent. Against the adjudication order
giving rise to the demand an appeal, along with a petition
for stay-cum-waiver, was filed before the tribunal. The
appeal and the stay petition were still pending before the   H
   226     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2010] 8 S.C.R.

A tribunal when the recovery proceedings were started in
  which the plot in question was put up for auction sale.
  In those circumstances, in this matter also, the private
  respondents approached the High Court with a writ
  petition which was disposed of by the High Court [Para
B 30] [244-B-D]
       3.6 In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
  private respondents it is stated that a copy of the High
  Court order was served upon the District Magistrate on
  July 15, 1992. In the Government record, however, there
C is no trace of the High Court order and there is no
  discussion about it in any of the notes. On the contrary
  on the same day (July 15, 1992) Sale Certificates were
  issued under the signature of the ADM (Finance), in
  favour of the appellants and were sent for registration.
D [Para 31) [245-C-D]
       3.7 In the counter affidavit filed by the UPSIDC it was
  alleged that ML and his brother RK are notorious land
  grabbers in the districts of G!laziabad and Gautam Budh
E Nagar and they had misappropriated about Rs.1125
  crores. [Para 33) [245-F-G]
       3.8 Against the auction sale of the plots, both the
  private respondents and UPSIDC filed their respective
  objections before the Commissioner, Meerut Division,
F but their objections were rejected by the Commissioner.
  The UPSIDC filed review petition before the
  Commissioner which too was dismissed on the ground
  that the objection petition was dismissed on merits by a
  speaking order. Against the order passed by the
G Commissioner, both the private respondent and the
  UPSIDC filed revisions before the Board of Revenue,
  Lucknow. Even while the revision of the private
  respondent was pending, the revision filed by the
  UPSIDC was dismissed by the Board of Revenue.
H Unfortunately, such a gross case could not be corrected
                                                                   •


    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                227
        INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD.
even at the highest level of the State Administration. [Para   A
36] [245-F-G]
     3.9 At one stage, this Court considered asking the
CBI to investigate the instant case as also other cases
of auction sale and alienation of land by the Revenue
                                                               8
Department of the State Government in the District of
Ghaziabad. However, this Court refrains from doing so
since the CBI is already overburdened and the matter is
about 20 years old. The officers posted at Ghaziabad
would no longer be there, some of them might even have         C
retired. [Para 40] [249-C-D]
     3.10 This Court is not for manipulators, speculators
and land grabbers. The exemplary cost of Rs.2 lakhs is
imposed on each of the two appellants. The amount of
cost must be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid               o
Committee within 12 weeks from today. In case receipts
showing payment of the cost is not filed within the
stipulated time, the amounts of cost would be realised
from the appellants as fine under the provisions of the
Cod'l of Criminal Procedure. [Para 41] [249-E-G]               E
    4. The existing provisions of the UPZALR Act and the
UPZALR Rules are out of date by three quarters of a
century. Those were designed to deal with agriculture
holdings in a rural area. Even for that purpose the
provisions appear to be far from satisfactory. But they        F
have become woefully inadequate and completely
deficient for dealing with land holdings and other
immovable properties in highly urbanised and
industrialised regions of the State. There is, therefore, an
urgent need to update the law either by framing fresh Act      G
and Rules or by thoroughly amending the existing ones.
[Para 42) [249-H; 250-A-B]
                    Case Law Reference:
    (1985) 3 sec 267         Referred to.         Para 37      H
    228      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         (2001) 10 sec 305       Referred to.         Para 37
          (2007) a sec 75         Referred to.         Para 37
          (2009) s sec 111        Referred to.         Para 37
          (2004) a sec s11        Referred to.         Para 37
B
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5177 of 2010.
      From the Judgment & Order dated 07.09.2006 of the High
  Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
C Nos. 3790 and 3799 of 2000.
       V.A. Mohta, R.P. Bhatt, Ashok H. Desai, S.R. Singh,
  Shyam Diwan, Amit Sharma, Nilakanta Nayyar, Anupam Lal
  Das, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Reena Singh, Abhijeet
D K., T.N. Singh, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Pawan S.
  Bindra, Kavita Wadia, R.P. Singh, Principal Secretary
  (Revenue)-ln-Person for the appearing parties.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Leave granted.
        2. On the writ petitions filed by the UP State Industrial
  Development Corporation (respondent no.1) the Allahabad
  High Court set aside the auction sale of two pieces of land
  made in favour of the appellants. The High Court held that the
F auction sale of the two plots was a nullity because in violation
  of rule 285-D of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
  (UPZALR) Rules, 1952 the appellants did not deposit one fourth
  of their bid amounts immediately on the conclusion of the
  auction, but deposited the requisite amounts on the following
G day. Having thus held the auction sale legally untenable, the
  High Court did not advert to the other circumstances and the
  manner in which the auction sale was held.
       3. The appellants came to this court taking the plea that
H they had deposited one fourth of their bid amounts on the day
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE      229
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

the auction was held and the decision of the High Court was         A
based on a patent error of law. Even while challenging the
judgment of the High Court, the appellants were anxious to not
enlarge the issues and to confine the case to the very limited
question whether or not the requisite amounts in terms of rule
285-D were deposited on the date of the auction. But, earlier       B.
in course of hearing of the case, we came across certain
disturbing features that compelled us to ask the State
Government to bring on record all the relevant materials
concerning the auction sale of the two pieces of land in
question. And now, the more we examine the facts of the case        c
the more we feel dismayed and distressed. It is plainly a case
of appropriation of large areas of public/government land by
 some very unscrupulous people both outside and inside the
 State Government acting in cahoots. And we have reasons to
fear that this is not an isolated case.                             D
     4. The two pieces of land that are at the centre of the
dispute are plot nos.2/1 & 212 situated in the Industrial Estate,
Sahibabad, in the district of Ghaziabad, UP. The two plots are
owned by the Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development
Corporation (UPSIDC). Plot no.2/1 was allotted by the UPSIDC        E
to Mis Bramic Suri Private Limited (BSPL) and plot no.2/2 to
M/s Suri Asbestos Private Limited (SAPL). These two plots
were pl,lrported to be purchased by Rakesh Kumar Goel (one
of the two appellants) and Mis Moti Board Industries Private
Limited, represented by its Director, Moti Lal Goel (the other      F
appellant) in an auction sale held by the revenue authorities of
the State Government. In course of hearing of the case, on our
direction, the State of UP (respondent no.3) produced all the
documents concerning the auction proceedings in respect of
the two plots. Those were taken on record as "Additional            G
Documents- Vol. 8", (relating to plot no.2/1) and "Additional
Documents- Vol. 9", (relating to plot no.2/2). The following
narration of facts is on the basis of the documents as contained
in the two volumes.
                                                                    H
      230       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A       5. BSPL had dues of Rs.1,55,309.85 plus interest @
  Rs.26.38 per day from January 12, 1991 under the Employees
  State Insurance Act, 1948. The Regional Director, ESI on
  December 13, 1991 sent a certificate to the Collector,
  Ghaziabad under section 5 of the Revenue Recovery Act for
B recovery of the dues. In pursuance of the certificate the
  Additional Collector, Ghaziabad issued two proclamations on
  May 12, 1992, one for attachment under sections 284/286 of
  the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and
  the other restraining 'the defaulter' (BSPL) from selling or
c transferring the plot in any manner to anyone or from creating
  any charge on it. The service report of the proclamations,
  scribbled in hand on their reverse sides, simply said that, on
  going to the site the firm was found closed. The chowkidar
  declined to take copies of the proclamations. The copies of the
D proclamations were, therefore, affixed to the gate of the
  premises in presence of witnesses and it was announced in a
  loud voice that the premises, plot no.2/1 was under attachment
  for non payment of government dues. The next step in the
  proceedings was the issuance of the Sale Proclamation by the
  Additional Collector. In the Sale Proclamation it was stated as
E follows:

            "Permission has been granted for the sale of the above
            mentioned property under Section 284 (or Section 286)
            of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land
F           Reforms Act, 1950 on account of the arrears of
            Rs.1,29,048.35, hence it is hereby ordered that the sale
            of the aforesaid property will be held in the forenoon (or in
            the afternoon as the case may be) of 15.6.1992 at the
            Tehsil premises.
G
            Plot No. 2/1, Site No.4, [full plot along with road].

                 [Please write here that the land will be sold in an un-
            encumbered state or encumbered state under Section 284
            and write such other particulars which the collector deems
1-1         necessary]"
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                     231
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     6. The Sale Proclamation is undated but its service report,     A
written in hand on its reverse, is dated June 5, 1992. The
service of the Sale Proclamation was also effected in the same
way as the earlier two proclamations, that is to say by affixing
a copy of the proclamation to the gate of the premises and by
making announcement in a loud voice that the property will be        B
auction sold on the specified date and asking the people to
come for the auction in large numbers.

     7. On June 9, 1992 a petition was filed on behalf of BSPL
requesting the Tehsildar, Dadri (Ghaziabad) for grant of some        C
time for payment of the government dues for the recovery of
which the auction sale proclamation was issued. The petition
submitted by the BSPL lies in the file of the auction proceeding
but apparently no notice was taken of it. It seems that Canara
Bank from where BSPL had taken a loan also got a wind of
the auction proceedings concerning plot no.2/1. On June 10,          D
1992, the Canara Bank wrote a letter to the ADM (Finance),
Ghaziabad stating that Site 4, plot no.2/1, Ghaziabad was
mortgaged in its favour as security for the loan advanced to
BSPL. The letter further stated that the bank had the first charge
over the land in question and requested the ADM not to proceed       E
with the proposed auction sale.

      8. At this stage BSPL took the matter to the court and filed
a writ petition (W. P. no.22295 of 1992) in the Allahabad High
Court for quashing the Sale Proclamation fixing the auction sale     F
of plot no. 2/1 on June 15, 1992. A photostat copy of the Sale
Proclamation was annexed to the writ petition marked as
Annexure 1. Along with the writ petition a stay petition was also
filed in which a prayer was made in the following terms:

     "It is, therefore, MOST RESPECTFULLY PRAYEO that this           G
     Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to stay the
     operation of the impugned Auction Certificate (Annexure
     No.11o the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.3-
     through which the date of auction has been fixed for
                                                                     H
    232      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A         15.6.1992, during the pendency of the present writ petition
          before this Hon'ble Court ............... "

       9. On June 12, 1992 the High Court granted ad interim stay
  in favour of the writ petitioner, BSPL. (We may state here that
  on these facts being stated before us in course of hearing of"
8
  the case, we summoned the original record of the writ petition
  from the Allahabad High Court and verified the facts from the
  original record). A certified copy of the order was produced
  later on but there is sufficient evidence to show that before the
  date fixed for the auction, the revenue authorities at Ghaziabad
C were informed about the stay order passed by the High Court
  through the lawyer's certificate.

        10. At this stage, we may advert to the other plot no.2/2,
  which was allotted by the UPSIDC to SAPL. The material facts
D and circumstances concerning the auction sale of this plot are
  very similar to what is stated above in respect of plot no.2/1.
  SAPL had dues of Central Excise amounting to Rs.4,53,541.92.
  For recovery of the dues, Superintendent of Excise, Range I,
  Sahibabad, issued a certificate to the Collector, Ghaziabad,
E under section 11 of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944. The
  certificate gave rise to a proceeding and the Pargana Adhikari,
  Dadri, asked the Tehsildar to pass the attachment order for
  recovery of the government dues, writing as follows:

          "It is heard that the firm owns a Plot No. 2/2. To my
F         information there is no charge in respect of this property.
           The firm is closed since a tong time. It is also heard that
          the owner of the plot Sardar Jagjeet Singh S/o Harnam
          Singh wants to sell this plot. There is ·a small shed
          constructed in the said plot No.2/2. It is requested that
G         orders to attach the said property be given so that,
          Government arrears may be recovered. The estimated
          value of the Plot No. 2/2 is Rs. 20.00 Lacs."
          (emphasis added)
H
       RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE      233
    INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
        11. Next, proclamations were issued on May 13, 1992, one      A
  for attachment of the plot and the other prohibiting SAPL from
  selling, transferring or mortgaging the property in favour of any
  other person. The service of the proclamations was effected
  exactly in the same manner as in the case of the other plot
  (being plot no.2/1 ). The Pargana Adhikari then made a request      B
  to the Tehsildar, Dadri for issuing the order for auction sale of
  the property that was lying under attachment. The Tehsildar
  issued the Sale Proclamation (undated) fixing the auction sale
  of this plot too on June 15, 1992. The service of the Sale
  Proclamation was effected in the same way as in case of the         c
  earlier proclamations. A petition for grant of some time for
  payment of the government dues was filed before the Tehsildar
  on June 9, 1992 on behalf of SAPL also.

       12. Thus, with a slight variation of dates in regard to the
  earlier proclamations, the two plots came to be fixed up for        D
  auction sale on the same date, June 15, 1992.

       13. There are memos of auction in respect of both the plots
  showing that their auction took place on June 15, 1992. From
  the memo of auction for plot no 2/1, it appears that five (5)       E
  bidders, including the appellant, Rakesh Kumar Goel, took part
  in the auction. The appellant made the highest bid of
  Rs.6,30,000/- and his bid was finally accepted. The memo also
  recorded that one fourth of the bid amount was deposited in
  the Nazan~1t in· Register No.4. ·                                   F

       14. The memo of auction for plot no.2/2 shows that there
  were five (5) bidders, including Moti Lal Goel, representing the
  second appellant. He made the highestbid of Rs.6,20,000/-
  which came to be accepted. The memo recorqed that one fourth
- of the bid amount was received, vide Receipt no.043560. We          G
  shall presently see that the statement in both the memos in
  regard to payment of one fourth of the bid amounts was quite
  false.          ·                                           ·

       15. The memos of auction did, not care to disclose the         H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 8 S.C.R.


A reserve amounts for the two plots but mentioned some terms
  and conditions suhject to which the auction was held.
  Conditions 1 and 3 of the auction as stated in the auction memo
  for plot no.2/2 are relevant and may be reproduced here:

          "1. 1/4th of the bid amount shall be deposited by the
B
          highest bidder, just after the close of the Auction
          Proceedings. The remaining 3/4th of the bid amount shall
          be deposited within a period of 15 days. On failure, by the
          highest bidder, to deposit 3/4th of the bid amount within
          the aforesaid stipulated period of 15 days, the 1/4th of the
c         bid amount, already deposited by the said bidder shall be
          forfeited in favour of the State Government.

          2.xxxxx
D         3. The auction shall be approved after the expiry of 30
          days meant for receiving any objection from anyone against
          the auction proceedings. The file shall be forwarded to the
          competent authority for approval of the auction proceeding
          after the expiry of the said period.
E         4. xxxxx"

        16. According to the private respondents (BSPL & SAPL),
  no auction was ever held and the whole thing was mere paper
  work. Our attention was also drawn to certain facts coming to
F light in course of a departmental enquiry later held in the matter.
  In the departmental enquiry One Harbeer Singh, AWBN stated
  that auction proceedings with respect to SAPL and BSPL
  (lands) were not held in the Tehsil office but papers were
  prepared at the residence of the ADM. In the morning of June
G 15, 1992 he was called there. At the residence of the ADM,
  the Amin, Ram Kumar was writing the proceedings on one of
  the files and he was asked to write the proceedings on the other
  file. Harbeer Singh said that the auction proceedings at pages
  40-41 were written by him and he wrote about the payment of
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                        235
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
one fourth of the bid amount on the instruction of the Naib             A
Tehsildar who was his superior officer.

     17. In the overall facts of the case (which have only partly
unfolded so far) the version given by Harbeer Singh appears
to be highly probable. But even if we discount that and take the
                                                                        8
documents concerning the auction sale of the two plots in the
government record at their face value, the auction proceedings
of the two plots appear to be full of anomalies some of which
may be enumerated as follows:

             i.     No notice or information about the                  C
                    attachment or sale of the two plots was given
                    to the UPSIDC which .is undeniably their
                    owner.

             ii.    No attention was paid to the claim of the. D
                    Canara Bank that it had the first charge over
                    plot no.2/1 which was given in mortgage to
                    the bank as security for the loan advanced
                    by it to BSPL.

             iii.   The Sale Proclamations did not indicate the         E
                    area of the plots or the nature of the rights
                    therein that would be the subject matter of the
                    sale; whether the auction would be in regard
                    to proprietary interests in the two plots or only
                    leasehold rights? In case of latter what would      F
                    be the limitations and conditions of the
                    leasehold rights?

             iv.    There was practically no public
                    advertisement (no newspaper publication or          G
                    any thing of that sort) to give wider
                    information to the general public about the
                    auction. The only public announcement was
                    done by the process server going to the site
                    and calling out loudly that the two plots would     H
    236   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A                  be put to auction sale on the specified date
                   for non-payment of government dues and
                   asking the people to come for the auction in
                  _large numbers.

            v.    No reserve price for the plots in question was
B
                  indicated either in the Sale Proclamations or
                  even in the Memos of Auction.

            vi.    Even though no reserve price was
                  mentioned in the Sale proclamations and the
c                 Auction Memos, from the other materials on
                   record it appears that reserve prices were
                  actually fixed for the two plots in question.
                  The reserve price for plot no.2/1 was fixed at
                   Rs.25 lakhs and for plot no.2/2 Rs.20 lakhs.
D                 Now, this gives rise to two questions. First,
                  how could the reserve prices be so low? In
                  the Additional Affidavit filed by the State in
                  compliance with the order dated July 7, 2009
                  it was admitted that "the valuation of the
E                 properties were not computed in accordance
                  with the procedure as prescribed under the
                  aforesaid Chapter-XV of the Revenue
                  Manual and were fixed without any basis". In
                  this connection it is worthy to note that plot
F                 no.2/1 has an area of 27,800 Sq. yards and
                  plot no.2/2, 35,700 Sq. yards; both the plots
                  are situate in the industrial area, Sahibabad
                  adjoining Delhi. According to the private
                  respondents, the market value of those plots
                  in 1992 would be in crores. We .are inclined
G
                  to think that the value of the two plots would
                  be nearer the figure quoted by the
                  respondents than the paltry amounts of Rs.25
                  lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs. The second and the
                  far more important question is how the bids
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                      237
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

                     of Rs.6,30,000/- and Rs.6, 20,000/- could be     A
                     accepted for plot nos.2/1 and 2/2 when 'their
                     reserve prices w~re Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.20
                     lakhs respectively? If the highest bid was
                     much lower than the resel'Ve price, the normal
                     procedure is to rejectall bids and to hold a     B
                     re-auction on a later date.

             vii.    The information about the stay order passed
                     by he High Court was completely ignored.

             viii.   There is nothing to show that after the          C
                     government dues were satisfied, the balance
                     of the sale price was refunded to the land
                     holders, the two private respondents BSPL
                     and SAPL.
                                                                      D
     18. At this stage, in fairness to all sides, it may be stated
that a number of the anomalies in the auction proceedings as
indicated above were possible only due to the grave flaws and
lacunae in the relevant provisions of the law. The auction
proceedings were held under the provisions of the UP                  E
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and UP
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952. Section
279 of thl::! Act lays down the procedure for recovery of an arrear
of land revenue and in so far as relevant for the present,
provides as follows:
                                                                      F
     "279. Procedure for recovery of an arrear of land revenue.-
     (1) An arrear of land revenue may be recovered by any one
     or more of the following processes-

     (a) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                                              G
     (b) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

     (c) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                                      H
    238       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A         (d) by attachment of the holding in respect of which the
          arrear is due;

          (e) by lease or sale of the holding in respect of which the
          arrear is due;
B         (f) by attachment and sale of other immovable property of
          the defaulter, and,

          (g) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

          (2) The costs of any of the processes mentioned in sub-
c         section(1) shall be added to and be recoverable in the
          same manner as the arrear of land revenue."

        19. Section 284 empowers the Collector {which includes
  an Assistant Collector of the first class, authorized by the State
D Government to discharge the functions of the Collector) to attach
  the holding of the defaulter, to give it on lease for a period of
  up to 20 years or to sell the holding free from all encumbrances
  and appropriate the proceeds in satisfaction of the arrears and
  refund the excess, if any, to the defaulter. Section 286 gives
E power to the Collector to proceed against the interests of the
  defaulter in other immovable properties. Section 341 provides
  for the application of the provisions of the CPC unless expressly
  barred by any of the provisions of the UPZALR Act.

F        20. Coming now to the provisions of the UPZALR Rules,
    the relevant provisions, dealing with attachment and
    proclamation of sale, are contained in rules 273, 273-A and 282
    which are as follows:

          "273. Where any land is attached in pursuance of the
G         provisions of clause (d) or (f) of Section 279 or sub-section
          (1) of Section 284 or of Section 286 or is let out under sub-
          section (2) of Section 284, a proclamation in Z.A. Form
          73, shall be affixed at a conspicuous place in the village
          in which the land is situate, and it shall also be notified by
H         beat of drum.
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE      239
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
    273A. The attachment of holing or other immovable poperty     A
    under clause (d) or (f) of section 279 or under section 284
    or section 286, shall be effected in the manner prescribed
    in Order XXI, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
    and the order to the defaulter shall be issued in Z.A. Form
    73-D.                                                         B
    282. Section 286- The proclamation for sale shall be in
    Z.A. Form 74"

     21. Further details in regard to the sale of a holding or
other immovable property for recovery of arrear are provided C
under rules 285-A to 285-N. For a very brief summary of the
way a sale is to be conducted, we may refer to rule 285-A that
provides that no sale under sections 284 and 286 would take.
place until after the expiry of at least 30 days from the date on
which the proclamation under rule 282 was issued; rule 285-C D
lays down that there would be no sale in case, before the date
fixed for the sale, the defaulter pays the arrears in respect of
which the land was to be sold. Rules 285-0 and 285-E are
relevant for the present and are reproduced below:
                                                                   E
     "285-D. The person declared to be the purchaser shall be
     required to deposit immediately twenty-five per cent of the
     amount of his bid, and in default of such deposit the land
     shall forthwith be again put up and sold and such person
     shall be liable for the expenses attending the first sale and F
     any deficiency of price which may occur on the re-sale
     which may be recovered from him by the Collector as if
     same were an arrear of land revenue.
    285-E. The full amount of purchase money shall be paid
    by the purchaser on or before the fifteenth day from the G
    date of the sale at the district treasury or any sub-treasury
    and in case of default the deposit, after the expenses of
    sale have been defrayed therefrom, shall be forfeited to
    Government and the property shall be re-sold and the
    defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims to the property, H
    240      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  {2010] 8 S.C.R.

A         or to any part of the sum for which it may be subsequently
          sold."

       22. Rule 285-H and 285-1 deal with applications/petitions
  that may be filed for setting aside the sale; rule 285-J provides
  for confirmation of sale on expiry of thirty days from the date of
8
  the auction, provided no objection is filed under rules 285-H or
  285-1 or, if any filed, has been disposed of. If no application is
  made within 30 days rule 285-K bars all claims on grounds of
  irregularity or mistake in publishing or conducting the sale. Rule
C 285-M provides for putting the purchaser of the property in its
  possession and the grant of the Sale Certificate to him.

       23. It is, thus, to be seen that under the Rules the only
  mode for advertisement of auction-sale is by affixation of the
  Sale Proclamation at a conspicuous place in the village where
D the property is located and by beat of drum. There is no
  provision of advertisement in the newspapers or by any other
  means to spread the information about the proposed auction
  on a large scale. Form ZA 73 (under Rule 273) and form ZA
  73-D (under Rule 273-A) only provide the physical description
E of the property and ploUhouse number and boundaries of the
  immovable property; Form 74 (rule 282) does not provide any
  description of the type of property (e.g., agricultural, homestead,
  industrial, etc.) or type of rights (e.g., lease and its term or
  freehold, etc.).                    ·
F      24. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules for fixation
  of reserve price before the property is put up for auction sale.
  We were, however, informed that the Collector of the District
  regularly notifies "circle rate" for different types of land and
  different locations. This circle rate is primarily used for
G computation of stamp duty for registration of document. We
  were informed that in 2007 instructions were given to confirm
  sale only above the market price. There is also no provision
  enabling the authorities to bar someone with a criminal record
  or against whom there are tax dues or government dues of any
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE      241
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
other kinds from taking part in the sale of land by the               A
government.                               ·

     25. It is, thus, evident that the law under which the auction
sale proceedings were held was itself quite deficient. But the
enumeration of the shortcomings and the lacunae in the                B
provisions of an archaic law is not to say that the auction
proceedings of the two plots were otherwise fair and proper
and suffered from some irregularities only due to the flaws in
the law. On the contrary, we have no doubt in our mind that
auction sale of the two plots was illegal, fraudulent and collusive   C
and the appellants and their abettors in the revenue department
of the State Government fully exploited the weaknesses of the
law to their advantage. This would be evident as the facts of
the case further unfold.

      26. We have seen above that rule 285-D of the UPZALR            D
Rules requires the highest bidder to deposit immediately twenty
five percent of the amount bid by him. We also noted that this
was one of the conditions mentioned in the Auction Memos.
We have also seen that in the two Auction Memos it was stated
that the highest bidders for the two plots, namely Rakesh Kumar       E
Goel and Moti Lal Goel had deposited one fourth of their
respective bid amounts immediately after the auction. But the
payment recorded in the Auction Memos is proved to be wrong
and incorrect by reference to the Government Records. All such
payments are entered in Register no.4. In the Allahabad High          F
Court where the auction sale of the two plots was challenged
on grounds of violation of rule 285-D, the Register was
produced by the Naib Tehsildar on being summoned by the
Court. The· High Court found that in Register no.4 there were
only three entries at serial nos.39, 40 and 55 in respect of the      G
auction sale of the two plots. These were as follows:

     "39. 16.6.1992 1/4t part No.844499/  155000.00
                    16.6.1992 Immovable
                    property of Ram Kumar
                    SA, M/s Suri Asbestos                             H
    242     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A                         Pvt. Ltd. through ML Moti
                          Goel, Director, Mis. Moti
                          Board Ind. Pvt. Ltd.
       40. 16.6.1992      1/4th part No. 844500/   157500.00
                          16.6.1992 of Immovable
B                         Property M/s Bramic Suri
                          Pvt. Ltd. through Rakesh
                          Kumar S/o. Lajja Ram,
                          Rio. Navyug Market,
                          Ghaziabad.
c      55. 29.6.1992      3/4th part of No.846590/      46500Q.OO
                          29.6.1992 of Immovable
                          Property        Mis  Suri
                          Asbestos property Pvt.
                          Ltd through ML Moti Goel,
D                         Director, M/s. Moti Board
                          Ind. Pvt. Ltd."

        27. From entries 39 and 40 it is clear that twenty five
  percent of the bid amounts for the two plots in question were
E deposited on June 16 and not immediately after the auction
  held on June 15, 1992 as claimed by the appellants. Mr. Mohta,
  learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellants kept
  telling us for days on end the appellants had receipts in their
  possession showing that the deposits were made on June 15
F itself. Notwithstanding the fact that the receipts were not filed
  in the High Court and neither were those enclosed with the
  SLP at the time of its filing, Mr. Mohta was allowed as much
  time as he wanted for producing those receipts. In the end he
  said that the receipts were misplaced and the appellants were
G not able to find them out. We have no doubt in our mind that
  all the time Mr. Mohta was wrongly briefed by the appellants.
  No receipts were produced in court because there were, in
  fact, no receipts showing payment immediately after the auction.

      28. The entries in Register no.4 show something else very
H important. It appears that the balance seventy five percent of
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                       243
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
the bid (Rs.6,30,000/-) for plot no.2/1 of BSPL was never              A
deposited at all. In other words the sale of plot no.2/1 was
confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the
appellant even without.payment of the full price of the plot.

      29. Let us now see how the sale of the two plots was             B
confirmed. The appellants and their abettors inside the revenue
department of the government were so far able to show that
for recovery of the Government dues the plots of land of BSPL
(2/1) and SAPL (2/2) were put to auction on June 15, 1992 in
which the two appellants were the highest bidders. The next            C
stage was the confirmation of the sale after dealing with th.e
objections. It is noted above that even before the date of the
auction the concerned authorities were given information about
the stay order passed by the Allahabad High Court in respect
of plot no.2/1. At that time they paid no heed to it but later on      D
certified copies of the order were produced. On June 18, 1992
certified copies of the stay order passed by the Allahabad High
Court were submitted before the Tehsildar, Dadri, both by the
private respondent and the Canara Bank. Now, this was a real
impediment to overcome before the sales could be confirmed             E
and the appellants and their abettors inside the government
could succeed in their designs. The High Court order was put
away in a highly disingenuous way. A note was put up in which
referring to the cause title of the writ petition, where the address
of the writ petitioner, M/s Bramic Suri Pvt. Ltd. was shown as         F
"Gyani Border, Post Office Chikambarpur, District Ghaziabad",
it was declared that the High Court Order was with respect to
some other property, situate at the site of the address given in
the writ petition. On June 30, 1992 the note was perused by
the District Magistrate and on the same date it was approved           G
by the ADM (F & R). No one cared to see that Annexure 1 to
the writ petition was a photostat copy of the very same Sale
Proclamation on the basis of which the auction sale of plot no.2/
 1 was held and in the writ petition the prayer was to quash the
Sale Proclamation at annexure 1 and in the stay petition the
                                                                       H
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A prayer was to stay its operation. It is not known whether this
  matter was brought to the notice of the High Court and whether
  the High Court took any action in the matter. We can only say
  that we find it one of the crudest manipulations coming to our
  notice.
B
       30. Coming now to plot no.2/2 which was put up for auction
  sale for recovery of the demand of Central Excise dues raised
  by the Excise Superintendent. Against the adjudication order
  giving rise to the demand an appeal, along with a petition for
  stay-cum-waiver, was filed before the Central Excise and Gold
C Control Appellate Tribunal. The appeal and the stay petition
  were still pending before the Tribunal when the recovery
  proceedings were started in which the plot in question was put
  up for auction sale. In those circumstances, in this matter also,
  the private respondents approached the Allahabad High Court
D with a writ petition which was disposed of by the High Court
  by order dated July 13, 1992 observing as follows:

          "Having considered the matter carefully, we find that there
          is a good deal of justification made by the petitioner. In the
E         circumstances, we consider it equitable and in the interest
          of justice to direct the respondents to stay their hands and
          not to proceed with the recovery proceedings till the stay-
          cum-waiver application is adjudicated by the tribunal.
          Accordingly, we direct the Central Excise and Gold Control
F         Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to decide the stay-cum-
          waiver application, within a period of six weeks, a certified
          copy of this order is filed before it. The petitioner
          undertakes to file a certified copy of the order within ten
          days before the Tribunal. We further direct that for a period
          of two months or till the disposal of the stay-cum-waiver
G
          application, whichever is earlier, recovery proceedings
          against the petitioner shall remain stayed and no further
          proceedings shall be taken in pursuance to sale
          proclamation, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-
          3 to the writ petition. We however, make it clear that if the
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                            245
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.)
    stay-cum-waiver application has already been decided or               A
    if the petitioner fails to file a certified copy of the order
    before the Appellate Tribunal as directed above, the stay
    of the recovery proceedings granted by this court by this
    order shall be of no avail to the petitioner and it shall be
    open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner             B
    in accordance with law."

     31. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private
respondents it is stated that a copy of the High, Court order was
served upon the District Magistrate on July ·15, 1992. In the C
Government record, however, there is no trace·of the High Court
order and there is no discussion about it in any of the notes. ·
On the contrary on the same day (July 15, 1992) Sale
Certificates were issued under the signature of the ADM
(Finance), a certain Ram Bahadur in favour of the appellants
and were sent for registration.                                   D
                                                       "
     32. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, we
do not have the slightest hesitation in_ holding that the auction
sale of the two plots in question was fraudulent, collusive, sham
and mala fide. In the guise of recovery of the government dues, · E
the two appellants in collusion with their abettors in the
government departments were trying to grab government lands
and they almost succeeded but for the interference by the
Allahabad High Court.

      33. It may also be stated here that in the counter affidavit        F
filed by the UPSIDC it was alleged that Moti Lal Goel and his
brother Rake'Sh Kumar Goel are notorious land grabbers in the
districts of Ghaziabad and Gautam Budh Nagar and they had
misappropriated about Rs.1125 crores. The counter affidavit
gave a large extract from the affidavit of the Tehsildar Oudicial),       G
Ghaziabad, filed in the case before the High Court. In the
Tehsildar's affidavit filed before the High Court very serious
allegations were made against Moti Lal Goel. In view of the
statements made in the counter affidavit of UPSIDC, this court
on April 24, 2009 passed the following order:                             H



                                                             •. \
    246       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A         "......... In this case serious allegations are made against
          the petitioner on the basis of petitioner indulging in land
          scam. An affidavit has been filled by the Deputy Manager,
          U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited
          giving credentials of the petitioner with regard to the fraud
B         allegedly committed of rupees more than one thousand
          crores. Several cases are pending before the Criminal
          Courts under Indian Penal Code as well as under Gangster
          Act. Although the present case arises from an auction sale,
          we want to know from the State of U.P. as to on what basis
c         people with such credentials are allowed to take part in
          the auction and why is the State not responding to the
          Petition ............. ."
    Again on July 14, 2009, this court passed the order:
D         "........ It has been alleged and prima facie we are satisfied
          that over the years lands owned by State of U.P. are being
          alienated in the name of auction at an undervalued rate. It
          is also alleged that some of the alienations have taken
          place at gun point. These are very serious allegations.
E         FIRs have been filed in this connection. We want the State
          of U.P., through its counsel, to submit a status report of
          cases filed against the Goel family allegedly involved in the
          aforesaid practices .......... ."

F      34. In compliance with the order, an affidavit sworn by one
  Shri R.N. Upadhyaya, Special Secretary, Department bf
  Revenue, Government of Uttar Pradesh was filed on July 25,
  2009. In this affidavit, it is stated that Moti Lal Goel, Rakesh
  Kumar Goel and their family members were accused in sixteen
  (16) criminal cases in district Gautam Budh Nagar. Out of the
G sixteen (16) cases, three (3) were at the stage of investigation
  and one (1) was referred for inquiry to the CBI. In rest of the
  twelve (12) cases charge sheets were filed before the
  competent court in year 2005 and onwards. In the district of
  Ghaziabad, Moti Lal Goel, Rakesh Kumar Goel and their family
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                       247
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
members were accused in ten (10) criminal cases. Out of the           A
ten (10) cases, two (2) were at the stage of investigation and
two (~) were referred to the CBL !n rest of the six (6) cases
charge sheets were filed before the competent court in year
2005 onwards. In the affidavit a long list was given of the cases
against Moti Lal Goel and Rakesh Kumar Goel and their other           B
family members pending in the two districts. From the list of
cases it appears that almost all the cases were under sections
420, 467, 468, 469 and 472 of the Penal Code and the different
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the affidavit it
was further stated that according to the report of the District       c
Magistrate, Ghaziabad, Moti Lal Goel and his family members
had got their name falsely and fraudulently entered in the
revenue record in respect of land measuring about 129
hectares, the market value of which, in the year 2005, was
approximately Rs.1100 crores. Similarly, from the report of the       D
District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar, it appeared that Moti
Lal Goel and his family members had got their name fraudulently
entered in the revenue records in respect of land measuring
252 hectares, the market value of which in the year 2005 was
about Rs.400 crores. The affidavit also gave the list of the lands    E
in regard to which Moti Lal Goel and his family members had
got their names allegedly fraudulently recorded in the revenue
records.

     35. These, in short, are the credentials of the two appellants
and the manner in which the two plots in question were put to         F
auction sale purportedly for recovery of the government dues.

     36. Against the auction sale of the plots in question both
the private respondents and the UPSIDC, the owner of the plots,
filed their respective objections before the Commissioner, G
Meerut Division, but their objections were rejected by the order
dated November 5, 1998 passed by the Commissioner in
objection letter Nos.19.and 25of1991-1992. The UPSIDC filed
review petition before the Commissioner which too was
dismissed on May 3, 1999 on the ground that the objection-:. H
    248     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2010) 8 S.C.R.

A petition was dismissed on merits by a speaking order. Against
  the order passed by the Commissioner, both the private
  respondent and the UPSIDC filed revisions before the Board
  of Revenue, Lucknow. Even while the revision of the private
  respondent was pending, the revision filed by the UPSIDC was
B dismissed by order dated October 11, 1999 passed by the
  Board of Revenue in Revision No.10(LR) of 1998-1999. We
  feel sorry that such a gross case could not be corrected even
  at the highest level of the State Administration.

       37. Whatever little redemption the State Government was
C able to attain in this case was through Mr. Ashok Desai, senior
  advocate, who appeared on its behalf at the stage of the final
  hearing of the case. Mr. Desai, with great fairness, did not try
  to support the auction sale of the plots in question even for a
  moment. On the contrary, he submitted that the auction
D proceedings broke all canons and principles laid down by this
  Court for the sale of government land by public auction. Mr.
  Desai invited our attention to a number of decisions of this
  Court where it is said that the disposal of public property
  partakes the character of trust and the government or the public
E authorities are obliged to make all attempts to obtain the best
  available market price while disposing of public properties.
  [Ram and Shyam Co. vs. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC
  267 (paragraphs 5, 6 12 & 15); V. Purushotham Rao vs. Union
  of India, (2001) 10 SCC 305 (paragraph 26); Aggarwal and
F Modi Enterprises (P.) Ltd. vs. New Delhi Municipal Council
    (2007) 8 SCC 75 (paragraph 23); Meerut Development
    Authority vs. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6
  SCC 171]. He also submitted that it was not open to the
  government or the public authority to dispose of public property
G below the reserve price. In support of the submission he invited
  our attention to a decision of this court in Anil Kumar Srivastava
  vs. State of UP, (2004) 8 SCC 671.

       38. He also took us through the relevant provisions of the
    UPZALR Act and the UPZALR Rules as referred to above in
H
    RAKESH KUMAR GOEL ETC. v. U.P. STATE                       249
 INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
this judgment. We appreciate the assistance rendered by him            A
to the Court.

     39. Ir the facts and circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the so called auction sale of the two plots in favour
of the appellants was thoroughly illegal. Though the High Court        B
set aside the auction sale of the two plots on the technical
ground of violation of Rule 285-D, on a consideration of the
overall facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the
auction sale was bad and malafide and was a blatant attempt
to grab the public land. We, thus, find no merit in the appeal.
                                                                       c
    40. At one stage we considered asking the CBI to
investigate the present case as also other cases of auction sale
and alienation of land by the Revenue Department of the State
Government in the District of Ghaziabad. We, however, refrain
from doing so for two reasons. One, the CBI is already                 D
overburdened and secondly, the matter is about 20 years old.
The officers posted at Ghaziabad would no longer be there,
some of them might even have.retired.

      41. But this case certainly calls for exemplary costs to the E
appellants. We wish to make it absolutely clear that this Coµrt
is not for manipulators, speculators and land grabbers. The
litigation in this Court is not like buying a lottery ticket that, .if
luck favours, might bring a windfall (even though illegitimate) but
would cost no more than the expenses of litigation. That is not
the way of this Court. We, accordingly, impose cost of Rs.2 F
lakhs on each of the two appellants. The amount of cost must
be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee within 12
weeks from today. In case receipts showing payment of the
cost is not filed within the time as directed, the amounts of cost
shall be realised from the appellants as fine under the G
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

      42. Before parting with the records we feel obliged to say
that the existing provisions of the UPZALR Act and the UPZALR
Rules are out of date by three quarters of a century. Those were       H
    250     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A designed to deal with agriculture holdings in a rural area. Even
  for that purpose the provisions appear to be far from satisfactory.
  But they have become woefully inadequate and completely
  deficient for dealing with land holdings and other immovable
  properties in highly urbanised and industrialised regions of the
B State. There is, therefore, an urgent need to update the law
  either by framing fresh Act and Rules or by thoroughly amending
  the existing ones.

       43. In the resuft the appeal is dismissed with costs as
  indicated above. The dismissal of the appeal shall not stand
  in the way of the authorities to recover from the private
  respondents Government dues, if any, in accordance with law.
  We are also not expressing any opinion as to who would get
  possession over the two plots as the result of the setting aside
  of their auction sale. lf"the private respondents claim
C possession over the two plots the UPSIDC will take a decision
  on their claim, in accordance with law.

    N.J.                                         Appeal dismissed.