2014 Supreme(SC) 882

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. EQBAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Sri Prabin Ram Phukan & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Assam & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 662-663 OF 2008
Decided on: 11-12-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
Board of Revenue being court of fact, its findings were binding on the writ Court.
High Court under Article 226/227 cannot sit in appeal over finding of facts by court if fact. Even if it does, it should assign cogent reasons for doing so.
If an estate is to be sold for recovery of revenue arrears, dominant factor should be to get best price.
State conducting auction on paper only to enable the State to invoke rule 141 to acquire the land for Re. 1/- only. Not valid.

Headnote:(a) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – Section 72 read with Rules 133, 134, 136 and 136-A, Regulations – Service of notice – Distinction between non-service and notice served with procedural irregularities – Non-service renders all consequential proceedings bad – action consequent upon irregular service, on the other hand, could be sustained unless the party is prejudiced thereby – Instant case falling in former category. (Para 26)

       (b) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – Mandatory for State to serve a proper notice to a person who is liable to pay any kind of State's dues strictly in the manner prescribed in the Regulation – Equally mandatory to give prior notice to the defaulter for recovery of dues before his properties (moveable or/and immoveable) are put to sale in the manner prescribed in the Regulation. (Para 27)

       (c) Constitution of India – Article 300A – No person can be deprived of this valuable right given by Constitution – Save by authority of law – State auctioning petitioner’s property behind his back – Cannot be sustained. (Para 28, 29)

       (d) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – Section 69 and 70 – Nothing on record showing why extreme step of selling estate of appellants u/s 70 was required to be taken to recover a small sum of Rs.731.70 paisa – Also nothing to show why arrears of Rs.731.70 paisa could not be recovered by sale of any moveable belonging to the appellants. (Para 33)

       (e) Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 – Section 69 and 70; Rule 155 and 141 – Sale of defaulter’s estate for recovery of State dues – Dominant consideration should always be to secure best price – By public auction – Instantly not complied with – Auction only on paper to enable State to invoke rule 141 and acquire the land for Re.1/- – Auction held by State neither legal nor in conformity with Regulation – Rightly set aside by the Board. (Para 36, 37, 38)

       (1995) 4 SCC 595; (2002) 3 SCC 496 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The dispute relates to the agricultural land measuring 59 Bighas 1 Katha 14 Leacha covered by Dag Nos. 435, 437, 376, 433, 434, 438, 439, 358, 361, 1348, 343 and 836 bearing patta Nos. 284 (new)/269(old) situated at Village Betkuchi in Mouza Beltola in the District of Kamrup. The appellants were the co-land holders of this land which is an “estate” as defined under Section 3(b) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886. Their names were also duly entered in the revenue records as “recorded land holders” as defined in Section 3(i) of the Regulation, all through. This land is subjected to payment of land revenue as per the provisions of the Regulation.

       A sum of Rs.731.70 was found payable by the appellants towards land revenue on the aforesaid land (estate) and since the appellants did not pay the said amount, the Deputy Commissioner registered a case being for recovery of Rs. 731.70 from the appellants. The Deputy Commissioner after making efforts to realize the dues by sale of moveable of the appellants put the aforesaid land for auction sale on 29.06.1978 for realization of Rs.731.70 as per the provisions of the Regulation. However, no bidder participated in the auction proceedings held on few adjourned dates and hence, the State stepped in and purchased the entire land/estate for Rs.1/-in the auction proceedings as provided under Rule 141. Thereafter, the State allotted 40 Bighas of land out of total land to the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) on payment of yearly premium of Rs. 26,000/-per Kattha. In addition, the State also directed the IOC to deposit Rs.38,50,600/-towards compensation with the State Government. The IOC, accordingly, deposited the sum as directed.

       The appellants (land holders) claiming to be completely unaware of the aforesaid proceedings and on coming to know of the same filed Case No. 42/RA(K) of 1996 on 02.04.1996 before the Board at Guwahati under Rule 149 of the Regulation.

       The Board allowed the appeal filed by the appellants and set aside the auction and the sale proceedings and directed the State to restore the land to the appellants on their paying outstanding land revenue and other dues, if any, as per law. It was further directed that since in the meantime, out of total land, some portion of the land, i.e., (40 Bighas or so) was already allotted to the IOC for consideration and hence, instead of restoring the possession of the land allotted to the IOC, the amount of compensation deposited by the IOC for allotted land was directed to be paid to the appellants after working out their actual share in the land. In this way, the appellants got around 19 Bighas of land and also became entitled to receive the compensation amount deposited by the IOC whereas the IOC was allowed to retain the allotted land in lieu of compensation paid by them for such land.

       In compliance of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner raised a demand for Rs.1092/-towards land revenue and Rs.273/-towards local tax from the appellants in relation to the land in question. On 16.02.1999, the appellants deposited the sum so demanded.

       Since the State was not paying the compensation amount to the appellants in terms of the directions of the Board, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 2234 of 2000 before the High Court seeking mandamus against the State and the concerned State Authorities to pay/release the compensation amount to the appellants.

       The single judge allowed the appellants’ writ petition. The review petition was dismissed.

       The State filed petition being before the High Court. The Division Bench clubbed writ appeal of the State, which was remanded by Supreme Court with Writ Petition No 5628 of 2004 filed by the State because both the cases had arisen out of the same order of the Board and pertained to the same land.

       By impugned order, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and the writ petition.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.