IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Attachment and auction of property – No application to set aside a sale on grounds of irregularity or fraud can be entertained on any ground which applicant would have taken on or before date on which proclamation of sale was drawn up – Mere absence of or defect in attachment of property sold should not by itself be a ground for setting aside sale.
(2) Though right in property is not a fundamental right, it is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of Constitution of India – A person can be deprived of rights of property only in a manner known to law.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The dispute about the non-payment of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘LA Act’) has spanned over more than three decades.

2. Respondents no. 2 to 5 were the original owners of the land, measuring 8 Kanals and 11 ½ Marlas, which was acquired by Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as “the Respondent Trust”).

3. The compensation determined by the Respondent Trust was not acceptable to the land owners, thus, reference was sought in terms of Section 18 of the LA Act. The Land Acquisition Tribunal made an award enhancing the compensation to the owners by determining the compensation as Rs.4,27,068/- along with future interest at 9%, per annum, from the date of the application. The Respondent Trust, however, did not pay the amount while it continued to enjoy the land.

4. It appears from the list of dates that despite all requests to the owners, the Respondent Trust did not oblige, leaving the owners with little option but to file an execution petition in the year 1991. The Execution Petition was, however, dismissed as unsatisfied on 21.09.1991.

5. A perusal of the order, however, shows no reason for the same except mere sentence of the decree, holding the execution petition as unsatisfied. On 27.09.1991, the owners filed the second execution application for recovery of the compensation amount, along with interest, seeking to make the recovery through attachment of property. The details of the property, which was sought to be attached, were more specifically described by a site plan, which was filed in the proceedings and has been placed before us. The site plan shows a triangular piece of land i.e. field on one side, Pakhowal Road towards Ludhiana on the second side and the railway line on the hypotenuse side.

6. In the application filed under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Code’) read with Section 151 of the said Code, a proclamation of the sale of the property, comprised of Khewat No.867, Khatauni No.971, Khasra No.272, as per Jamabandi for the year 1988-89, Village Jawaddi, Hadbast No.160, Tehsil and District, Ludhiana, was sought. It may be noted that in the site plan, there is an ear marking of the godown and the chowkidar room and the remaining land has been shown as vacant. The tentative cost of the property, as stated in the application, is about Rs. 8 lakhs which was sufficient to cover the recovery of Rs.4,27,068/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

7. Once again, the notice was served upon the Respondent Trust on 12.05.1992, but elicited no response from the Respondent Trust. The Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ludhiana, issued a warrant for sale of the attached property on 25.05.1992. Consequently, the attached property, measuring 7000 sq. yards approximately, bearing Khasra nos.271 and 272, was sold to the Appellant by way of auction conducted by the Court Auctioneer on 12.08.1992 for a consideration of Rs.22.65 lakhs.

8. The Respondent Trust apparently woke up only thereafter and on 26.09.1992 filed an application before the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Ludhiana, under Order XXI Rule 90 of the said Code to set aside the ex parte attachment and auction of the Trust’s property. It may be noted that even during this period of time it is not as if the payments were made to the land owners.

9. A perusal of the objection shows that it is pleaded that there was no valid or proper service of notice though it is not disputed that there was a service of notice. There were certain other technical objections also raised, inter alia, alleging that no mandatory notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the said Code was issued or served, no proclamation of sale by auction has been made or published, the property in question, is not capable for attachment and sale as it is part of development scheme, which stands already allocated for allotment under