Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. AGRAWAL AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
Rao Mahmood Ahmed Khan, Appellant
Versus
Sh. Ranbir Singh and others, Respondents.
C.A. No. 2589 of 1995, (arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 1404 of 1992)
Decided on 22-2-1995.
Advocates appeared
Ashraf Choudhry, Mrs. Musharraf Choudhry, Asim Mehrotra, Mahmood Khalid Rao and Abhijat P. Medh, Advocates, for Appellants; Banarasi Dass, Bahar U. Bangi and Anis Suhrawardy, Advocates, for Respondents; Mahabin Singh, Ms. Kusum Singh and P. N. Gupta, Advocates, for Intervenor.
* C. M. W. P. No. 9589 of 1985, D/- 2-1-1992 (All.)
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Order 21 - Rule 84, 85 and 86 - Rule 285-D of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Deficiency Of Price - Confirmation of auction sale - Sale Officer taking bid made by respondent be adequate and reasonable accepted same and directed respondent deposit bid amount at once and balance of sale amount within his order auction purchaser deposited a sum means which was and accounted for in account and balance of bid was deposited in cash well within time stipulated by Rule said rules deceased Khan filed an objection for setting aside auction sale, inter-alia on grounds that bid amount was not deposited as required by law and that auction was fictitious and collusive, for reason that very same property when put to auction earlier highest bid offer was but same was rejected by Sale Officer on ground that bid money was inadequate as compared to value of property whereas subsequent auction sale could fetch highest price which was accepted to be adequate price in collusion of authorities with auction purchaser respondent –Held, Position to defray expenses of sale as contemplated other consequence that will follow is that re-sale of land will have be delayed and a fresh proclamation for sale has to be issued as provided therefore appears that does not contemplate any payment by but a cash deposit of bid amount has to be made in accordance with requirement rule otherwise very purpose of mandatory would be frustrated and rendered nugatory- In these facts and circumstances court are view that deposit of bid amount by will not be a valid tender within meaning of rule - This was also view taken by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in case and Learned Single Judge was not right in ignoring said view by observing that was obiter- High Court of Madhya Pradesh Progressive Industrial Enterprises - Bank of Baroda also expressed view that deposit cent bid amount which was not on date on which person was declared purchaser but on there was no compliance counsel for auction purchaser respondent placing his reliance Bombay Commissioner Work Limited and some other decisions vehemently urged that deposit of cent of bid amount made by was valid deposit and in compliance Court have carefully gone through decisions relied on by learned counsel for respondent and find that same do not relate to consideration of provisions or any other provision which may be regarded as said decisions do not cover situation at all with which court are concerned in present appeal and same are quite distinguishable on facts as well as on law said decisions are therefore not helpful in present case - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
FAIZAN UDDIN, J. :—Leave granted.
Learned counsel for parties are heard.
2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the payment of one fourth of the amount of auction-sale by cheque is a valid tender within the meaning of Rule 285-D of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952.
3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this appeal may be stated thus: The deceased respondent No. 1 Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan being the defaulter of Government dues to the extent of Rs. 23026.37 paise was proceeded against for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and in pursuance of recovery proceedings the Collector, Saharanpur on 15-11-1986 attached his agricultural land bearing khasra No. 182, Mohalla Ismail Khan, Khewat No. 1/2 situated in Village Palhanpur, Tehsil and District Saharanpur. The said land was put to auction sale on 18-10-1973. Raghubir Singh, the respondent No. 1 herein was one of the bidders and his bid being highest for Rs. 31500/- .It was knocked down in his favour. The Sale Officer taking the bid made by respondent No. 1 to be adequate and reasonable accepted the same and directed the respondent No. 1 to deposit 25 per cent of the bid amount at once and the balance of the sale amount within 15 days by his order dated 10-10-1972. The respondent No. 1, auction purchaser deposited a sum of Rs. 9000/- by means of a cheque dated 10-10-1972 which was encashed and accounted for in Tehsil account on 22-10-1970 and the balance of the bid amount Rs. 23500/- was deposited in cash on 30-10-1973 well within the time stipulated by Rule 200-E of the said rules. The deceased Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan filed an objection on 17-11-1973 for setting aside the auction sale, inter-alia on the grounds that 1/4th of the bid amount was not deposited as required by law and that the auction was fictitious and collusive, for the reason that the very same property when put to auction earlier in 1969 the highest bid offer was Rs. 50,000/- but the same was rejected by the Sale Officer, Sharanpur on the ground that the bid money was inadequate as compared to the value of the property whereas the subsequent auction sale held on 18-10-1973 could fetch only Rs. 31500/- as the highest price which was accepted to be adequate price in collusion of the Tehsil authorities with the auction purchaser respondent No. 1 herein.
4. The aforesaid objection filed by deceased Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan was rejected and the sale held on 18-10-1973 in favour of Ranbir Singh. respondent No. 1 was confirmed by the Collector by his order dated 9-5-1974. The revision filed against the said order was recommended by the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut to the Board of Revenue for dismissal but the Board of Revenue by its order dated 31-5-1977 remanded the case back to the Commissioner for deciding the revision himself. On remand the Commissioner, Meerut dismissed the revision on merits by his order dated 25-5-1978. The Commissioner took the view that no material irregularity was committed in the conduct of auction sale nor it was proved that the deceased Rao Mahmood Ahmad Khan had suffered any substantial injury by reason of any of the alleged irregularities or mistakes. The said order of the Commissioner dated 25-5-1978 was, however, set aside by the Board of Revenue in revision by order dated 12-4-1985 on the ground that the deposit of 1/4 of the bid money by means of cheque was not a valid deposit within the meaning of Rule 285-D of the rules and the auction sale was therefore void. The said decision of the Board of Revenue was challenged by Shri Ranbir Singh, auction purchaser, respondent No. 1 herein before the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9589/1985 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 22-1-1992 allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1, by setting aside the aforesaid order of the Board of Revenue dated
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
