Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 440
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Sardar Nirmal Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. – Appellant
Vs.
Bhatia Safe Works & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 2007
Decided on : 03-03-2016
IMPORTANT POINT
Rules 285-D and 285-E of U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 are mandatory.
Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXI, Rules 84, 85 and 86 – Are mandatory – Rules 285-D and 285-E of U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 – Pari materia to rules 84, 85 and 86 – Held mandatory – Payment of 25% bid amount in cash immediately mandatory – Court bound to re-sell the property in the event of a default – Cheque not acceptable. (Para 10, 12, 13)
1995 Supp (4) SCC 275; (2008) 12 SCC 596; AIR 1954 SC 349 – Relied upon
1999 RD 291; (2012) 11 SCC 511 – Referred
(b) U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 – Rule 285A to 285E – Proclamation not issued in proper Form 34 – Value of property not estimated as per rules – Auction held within one day of issuing notice – Board of Revenue holding auction to be contrary to rules – No infirmity. (Para 15)
(c) U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 – Rule 285L – Appellant the auction purchaser – Depositing bid amount 35 years back – Auction held invalid – Appellant not getting his money back – Authorities directed to refund the amount with 5% interest. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,08,565.67 against the respondent for non-payment of dues to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI). In pursuance of the aforesaid award and keeping in view Section 45C of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the Regional Director of ESI issued a recovery certificate to the Collector concerned for realization of the said amount as land revenue.
On 24.11.1980, auction notice was issued in respect of the property situated on plot No. 123/256 (47A), Factory Area, Fazalganj, Kanpur admesauring an area about 667 sq. yards. The auction sale was conducted on 25.11.1980 and the appellant was the sole bidder in the auction and his offer of Rs. 50,000/- was accepted by the concerned Tehsildar.
The appellant deposited a cheque for 1/4th amount in favour of the Tehsildar and a cheque for the balance 3/4th amount was deposited on 4.12.1980. Both the cheques were returned by the Tehsildar on 13.1.1981 indicating that the Manager of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had refused to give the certificate of “good for payment” to the cheques.
A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by way of bank draft drawn on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur but the said bank draft was also returned by order dated 2.12.1981 stating that there was no account in the name of Tehsildar, Kanpur. Thereafter, the appellant deposited the amount in cash sometime in December 1981, after expiry of almost one year.
The first respondent filed certain objections to the auction sale which were not accepted and the auction was confirmed. The confirmation of auction sale was challenged before the Additional Commissioner which declined to interfere.
The Board of Revenue opined that the auction and the subsequent action were invalid. Resultantly, the revision petition was allowed and matter was remanded to the District Collector, Kanpur directing him to conduct a fresh auction as per the rules.
The High Court upheld the direction of the Board of Revenue.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
DIPAK MISRA, J.
1. The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc. No. 54478 of 2004 whereby the said court has affirmed the order of the Board of Revenue which had held that the auction sale made in favour of the appellant was liable to be set aside as there had been non-compliance of Rules 285B and 285C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (for short, ‘the Rules’) and also violations of the principles conducting auction.
2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an award for a sum of Rs. 2,08,565.67 against the respondent for non-payment of dues to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI). In pursuance of the aforesaid award and keeping in view Section 45C of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the Regional Director of ESI issued a recovery certificate to the Collector concerned for realization of the said amount as land revenue. After receipt of the said requisition, the competent authority commenced the proceedings. On 24.11.1980, auction notice was issued in respect of the property situated on plot No. 123/256 (47A), Factory Area, Fazalganj, Kanpur admesauring an area about 667 sq. yards. The auction sale was conducted on 25.11.1980 and the appellant was the sole bidder in the auction and his offer of Rs. 50,000/- was accepted by the concerned Tehsildar.
3. As per the conditions set out in the auction, the successful bidder was required to deposit 1/4th of the amount in cash and the balance 3/4th amount within 15 days. There was a postulate that no cheque would be accepted. Despite the aforesaid stipulation in the auction notice, the appellant deposited a cheque for 1/4th amount in favour of the Tehsildar and a cheque for the balance 3/4th amount was deposited on 4.12.1980. Both the cheques were returned by the Tehsildar on 13.1.1981 indicating that the Manager of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur had refused to give the certificate of “good for payment” to the cheques. The said intimation was furnished to the appellant requiring him to submit a bank draft for the amount immediately so that further action could be taken at his end. As is evident, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by way of bank draft drawn on the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur but the said bank draft was also returned by order dated 2.12.1981 stating that there was no account in the name of Tehsildar, Kanpur. Thereafter, the appellant deposited the amount in cash some time in December 1981, after expiry of almost one year.
4. As the facts would exposit, the first respondent filed certain objections to the auction sale which were not accepted and the auction was confirmed. The said confirmation of auction sale was challenged before the Additional Commissioner by way of a revision and the said authority declined to interfere. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, the respondent filed a revision before the Board of Revenue and the revisional authority vide order dated 05.08.1989, dismissing the revision opining that it was not maintainable. The said order was assailed in a writ petition before the High Court. The writ Court noticed that the Board of Revenue had dismissed the revision without adverting to the merits solely on the ground that the revision petition was not maintainable. The High Court placing reliance on the Full Bench decision in Ram Swaroop v. Board of Revenue (1999 RD 291), allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 5.8.1989 by the Board of Revenue and remanded the matter to the revisional authority for adjudication on merits.
5. After the remand, the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.8.2004 held that the plot in question was auctioned on 25.11.1980 and 1/4th of the amount was deposited by cheque which could not have been regarded as payment a
