Back
1975 Supreme(SC) 372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND A.C. GUPTA, JJ.
Gowrisetti Venkataiah, Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Karimnagar and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 872 of 1968,
D/- 25-9-1975.
Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 -Sale Of Property - Claim Of Appellant - Controversy in this case may without caricature be described as a storm in a tea cup- A sale of property respondent who was an Contractor in arrears was held by and purchaser highest bidder is appellant- bid amount for which sale was knocked down was - Although total amount due from Contractor odd part of it was penalty for default in payment which eventually was waived by State Government- Thus what was realizable from Contractor was only sale having fetched a balance is all that State is entitled to get- In light of what court propose to hold and on a suggestion from Court appellant has agreed to deposit balance rounded off into Treasury within one month from today –Held, Litigation itself arose by way of a writ petition challenging setting aside of Board of Revenue- According to appellant-auction purchaser there was no legal ground or even power to set aside sale which had already been confirmed- High Court at second tier appeal before Division Bench took view that sale was bad and liable to be set aside on short ground that balance sale price had not been deposited within 30 days of receipt of notice as required - Court have been taken by counsel for appellant through basic facts necessary for appreciating his contention that his client had actually made deposit within - It is a simple case of slip up on part of High Court- Therefore court see no way to uphold finding of High Court that deposit was made beyond time and sale was void- In result court allow appeal hold sale good but direct as earlier stated that appellant do deposit Rupees which means that State would have realised entire arrear due from contractor- It worthwhile noticing that latter has not cared to appear in this Court or contest claim of appellant that sale be upheld - Appeal allowed
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. - The controversy in this case may, without caricature, be described as a storm in a tea cup. A sale of the property of the 2nd respondent, who was an Abkari Contractor in arrears, was held by the Tehsildar and the purchaser, the highest bidder, is the appellant. The bid amount for which the sale was knocked down was Rs. 4050/-. Although the total amount due from the Abkari Contractor was Rs. 8,000/- odd, part of it was penalty for default in payment, which eventually was waived by the State Government. Thus, what was realisable from the Contractor was only Rupees 5429.67. The sale having fetched Rs. 4050, a balance of Rs. 1379.67 is all that the State is entitled to get. In the light of what we propose to hold and, on a suggestion from the Court, the appellant has agreed to deposit the balance of Rs. 1379.67 rounded off into Rs. 1380/- into the Treasury within one month from today.
2. The litigation itself arose by way of a writ petition challenging the setting aside of the saly by the Board of Revenue. According to the appellant-auction purchaser, there was no legal ground or even power to set aside the sale which had already been confirmed. The High Court, at the second tier, i. e. in appeal before the Division Bench, took the view that the sale was bad and liable to be set aside on the short ground that the balance of 75% of the sale price had not been deposited within 30 days of the receipt of the notice as required by S. 135 (b) (2). We have been taken by counsel for the appellant, Shri Gupte, through the basic facts necessary for appreciating his contention that his client had actually made the deposit within 30 days. It is a simple case of slip up on the part of the High Court. Therefore, we see no way to uphold the finding of the High Court that the deposit was made beyond time and the sale was void. In the result, we allow the appeal, hold the sale good but direct as earlier stated that the appellant do deposit Rupees 1380/- which means that the State would have realised the entire arrear due from the Abkari contractor. It is worthwhile noticing that the latter has not cared to appear in this Court or contest the claim of the appellant that the sale be upheld.
3. We allow the appeal and confirm the sale with the directions above indicated. We do not go into any of the other questions which the appellant wanted to raise but, in the light of our finding, have become unnecessary. The parties will bear their own costs. The order will be communicated to the District Collector of Karimnagar forthwith.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1824
