JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted in these Special Leave Petitions.

2. By consent of learned advocates of contesting parties the appeals were heard finally and are being disposed of by this judgment.

3. A short question falls for our consideration in these two appeals arising out of a common judgment of Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal No.293 of 1991 connected with Writ Appeal No.721 of 1991. The question is whether the common appellant in these appeals who was original petitioner No.2 in these Special Leave Petitions had any locus standi to prefer an application under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 for setting aside the sale of immovable property of the defaulter income tax assessee from whom he is alleged to have agreed to purchase the said property and which property was sold in auction by the Income Tax Department in execution of Certificate of Recovery of Income Tax issued against the defaulter, owner of the property.

4. In order to answer this question the backdrop facts may be noted at the outset. One Y.S. Devendra Murthy who was the owner of the property auctioned by the Income Tax Department had committed default in payment of income tax dues assessed against him for the relevant assessment years. The Tax Recovery Officer under the Income Tax Act issued notice to him on 3rd September 1973 as per Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act which deals with Procedure for Recovery of Tax . The said defaulter Shri Y.S. Devendra Murthy entered into an agreement dated 20th November 1982 with the common appellant to sell his property being agricultural land being Survey No.20 and part of Survey No.21 for Rs.2,80,000/- and received an advance of Rs.1,62,000/-. The Sale Deed was to be executed by said Shri Y.S. Devendra Murthy within eight months which time limit was further extended by five months. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to sell on 2nd January 1984 alleging that said Shri Y.S. Devendra Murthy had failed to execute the Sale Deed pursuant to the Agreement. Earlier an ex-parte decree was passed in the said suit being Original Suit No.5 of 1984 but the said decree was set aside and the proceedings remained pending. In the meantime by an order dated 11th February 1988 the Tax Recovery Officer attached the aforesaid properties belonging to Y.S. Devendra Murthy and thereafter a proclamation of sale was issued for putting the said properties to auction sale for recovering the tax dues of the defaulter. The Tax Recovery Officer brought the said attached properties to sale on 14th March 1988. The third respondent herein was the successful bidder at the said auction and he became auction purchaser of these properties. Thereafter on 12th April 1988, that is, within thirty days from the date of the auction sale the appellant filed an application under Rule 60 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act. To the said application was annexed a letter from the general Power of Attorney holder of the defaulter Shri Y.S. Devendra Murthy authorising him to deposit the amount of tax arrears. The appellant along with the said application sought to deposit the interest and solatium at the rate of 5% with costs. The appellant also deposited Rs.3,42,322/- being the arrears of tax with interest and solatium with costs with the Tax Recovery Officer on the same day, that is, 12th April 1988. He accordingly prayed for setting aside the auction sale. The Tax Recovery Officer by his order dated 20th April 1988 rejected the said application by holding that as he was directed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Karnataka II. Bangalore to confirm the auction sale he had confirmed the auction sale and hence the application of the appellant was rejected. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the Tax Recovery Commissioner who rejected the said appeal and passed order dated 13th June 1988. At that stage the appellant along with the general P