The Supreme Court has recently intervened to stay the auction of a farmer’s land in Uttar Pradesh.
The case revolves around Sukhram, a Dalit farmer who took a loan of ₹23,049 from the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Rural Development Bank Ltd. for his dairy and buffalo farming.
Sukhram passed away in 2000, but in 2002, the administration initiated auction proceedings against his estate to recover the remaining ₹7,397, despite Sukhram having repaid a portion of the loan.
Sukhram’s son contested the auction, arguing that legal actions cannot be taken against a deceased individual. Initially, the Commissioner had set aside the auction, but the Allahabad High Court later upheld the decision to proceed with the auction.
Upon hearing the son’s plight, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the relevant parties and maintained, “In the meantime, status quo as on today shall be maintained,” effectively pausing the auction and providing interim relief to the family.
The interim order was passed by a bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar on October 25.
Advocates Utkarsh Singh, Md Tauheed Arshi, Mohd Humaid, and Tushar Manohar Khairnar represented the petitioner, who challenged the orders issued by the Allahabad High Court on January 24, 2023, and May 21, 2024.
The High Court was reviewing a decision from January 3, 2007, by the Judicial Commissioner of Allahabad Division, which had initially canceled the auction on the grounds that it was being executed against a deceased individual. However, the High Court later recalled this decision.
The petition claimed that the High Court’s ruling was made ex-parte, as Sukhram’s counsel was not present and had no prior knowledge of the case being listed. The Special Leave Petition asserted that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without considering the petitioner’s arguments and the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner argued that the dismissal has led to irreparable loss and injury, making the restoration of the writ petition essential for justice.
This case highlights the complexities surrounding legal proceedings involving deceased individuals and the importance of due process in such matters. The Supreme Court’s intervention serves as a critical reminder of the need for fairness and justice in the legal system.
