SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 613

1996(3) Supreme 114
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.P. Singh and S.C. Sen, JJ.
Laxmikant & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Satyawan & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1683 of 1982
Decided on 19-3-1996

IMPORTANT POINT
The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held.

Headnote:Public Auction-Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1955-Rule 4(3)-Statutory obligation of Trust under-Lease-Non-compliance of condition of lease-Allotment of plot cancelled-Plot put on auction-Respondent was highest bidder till second round of bid-Order staying auction before third round of bid could be held-However, respondent deposited an amount as earnest money-Trust took a decision to reinstate allotments which had been cancelled-Resolution passed to reject highest bid of respondent-Resolution quashed by High Court saying that as the respondent was the highest bidder, Trust has to perform its statutory obligation under Rule 4(3)-Appeal-Whether High Court was justified in quashing resolution of Trust ?-(No)

       Held : The High Court having held that because of the order of stay, the third round of bid could not be held and as such there was no completed contract which could be enforced in Court, issued the impugned direction, directing the Trust to transfer the land in question to the respondent, who was the highest bidder at the auction aforesaid. We are not able to reconcile the findings of the High Court. If the public auction had not culminated to its logical end because the third round of bid was a must, then how the High Court came to conclusion that the respondent had acquired any right in respect of the plot in question? When sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 aforesaid requires the trust to transfer the land in question after the auction it assumes that a valid right has accrued to the highest bidder which has been accepted by the Trust. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 has to be read along with the proviso thereto referred to above which vests power to accept a lowr bid or to withdraw the land itself from auction inspite of the highest offer being made by any person. (Para 3)

       Further held that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the confirmation letter had been issued to him. The conditions of the auction clearly conceived and contemplated that the acceptance of the highest bid by the Board of Trustees was a must and the Trust reserved the right to itself to reject the highest or any bid. The acceptance of the highest bid is subject to the conditions of holding the public auction and the right of the highest bidder has to be examined in context with the different conditions under which such auction has been held. In the present case no right had accrued to the respondent either on the basis of the statutory provision under Rule 4(3) or under the conditions of the sale which had been notified before the public auction was held. (Para 4)

       

JUDGMENT

N.P. Singh, J.-This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the resolution dated 27.2.1981 of the respondent - Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) and directing the Trust to transfer the land in question to writ-petitioner/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) being the highest bidder.

2. The said Trust had framed a scheme known as "Central Avenue Scheme" and Plot No. 57 in circle No. 7/12 was leased out to C.P. Syndicate, Nagpur. However, the aforesaid C.P. Syndicate on 30.10.1957 transferred its right, title and interest in the lease-hold to the appellant No. 1, Laxmikant. The other appellants are brothers of appellant No. 1. One of the conditions imposed by the Trust in respect of the aforesaid lease was that the construction should start within four years from the date of the agreement of lease and it should be completed within three years thereafter. As this condition was not complied with, a notice was issued to the appellants alongwith other defaulters as to why the lease be not cancelled. Show cause was filed on behalf of the appellants which was accepted by the Trust on a condition that the appellants should make the construction on the plot on or before 30.6.1971. As there was a default on the part of the appellants, the allotment of the plot was cancelled on 11.1.1972. Again representations were filed before the Trust but the plot in question was put on auction on 21.1.1974. The respondent participated at the said auction and offered Rs. 3,12,000/- and he was the highest bidder till the second round of the bid. But before the third round of the bid could be held on order staying the auction was received. There is no dispute that the third round of bid could not be held. However, the respondent deposited an amount of Rs. 31,200/- as an earnest money as per conditions of the auction.

3. The Writ Petition (W.P. No. 102 of 1974) filed on behalf of the appellants was admitted on 11.3.1974. It appears that in the meantime the Trust took a decision to reinstate the allotments which had been cancelled due to non completion of the construction over the plots of different lessees. We were informed that there were 17 lessees including the appellants. It is an admitted position that the cancellation order in respect of 16 lessees have been recalled and their allotments have been reinstated with reference to the different plots allotted in their favour. On behalf of the appellants, it was stated that as the writ petition on their behalf was pending, they were required to withdraw the writ petition, so that further action could be taken. The appellants withdrew the said writ petition on 30.9.1980. Thereafter, a meeting of the Board of the Trust was held on 27.2.1981 to consider the question as to whether the highest bid of the respondent be rejected and the plot be reinstated in favour of the appellants. The relevant part of the resolution says :-

"The Board, therefore, decided by majority of votes that the highest bid of Shri S.S. Bhojwani, Chief Promoter, Indus Cooperative Housing Society, Ltd., received in the auction should be rejected and the plot should be reinstated in favour of the original allottees Shri Laxmikant Itkelwar and others on the following terms and conditions............."

This very resolution has been quashed by the High Court by the impuged judgment saying that as the respondent was the highest bidder at the auction aforesaid, the Trust had to perform its statutory obligation under Rule 4(3) of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1955 which is as follows :-

"Where it is proposed to depose of any Trust land by auction, the premium to be paid for the transfer of such land shall be put to auction after giving due publicity to the date and place of auction and the Trust land to be auctioned and the land shall be transferred to the highest bidder subject among other things, to be condition of payment of ground r














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top