The auction sale was declared illegal due to non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to statutory procedures in public auctions.

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

i. Whether the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution?

a. Difference between the auction sale conducted by the court in the execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder and the auction proceedings conducted by the State through its revenue authorities like Tahsildar, etc.

ii. Whether the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Maharashtra had the jurisdiction to decide the two appeals filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 6 respectively under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?

G. CONCLUSION

1. Leave granted.

2. Since the issues raised in both the captioned appeals are the same; the subject-matter also being the same; the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The captioned appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 9.12.2015 in Writ Petition (C) No. 415 of 2011 with Writ Petition (C) No. 418 of 2011 respectively filed by the appellant herein by which the High Court rejected both the writ petitions and thereby affirmed the common order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai setting aside the order of sale passed by the Tahsildar, Talasari dated 3.12.2008 as affirmed by the Additional Collector, Thane dated 15.01.2009 passed in favour of the appellant herein.

4. The subject-matter of the present litigation relates to the legality, validity and propriety of the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar, Talasari of the subject property which was originally owned by the respondent No. 1 herein, namely, Prestige H.M. Polycontainers Limited.

5. The subject property owned by the respondent no. 1 herein was put to auction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Revenue Code"). In the said auction proceedings, the appellant herein was declared as the successful bidder and ultimately, sale certificate was issued by the Additional Collector, Thane in favour of the appellant.

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

6. This litigation has a chequered history and therefore, it is necessary for this Court to look into the events that occurred over a period of time giving rise to the present two appeals before us:

a. The respondent no. 1, M/s Prestige H.M. Polycontainers, executed necessary loan and security documents in favour of the State Bank of India thereby mortgaging its property situated at Village Vadavali, Taluka Talsari, District Thane (Now District Palaghar), Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as "the property") bearing Survey No. 87/11, admeasuring 13,978 sq. mts. Subsequently, the State Bank of India by an assignment agreement assigned the debts due an