The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection afforded to bonafide auction purchasers and the distinction between decree-holder auction purchasers and strangers to the decree.

JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.10248/2019 & W.P.Nos.10929-931/2019, whereby the Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein have been dismissed.

2. The respondent Nos.5 to 8 had filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Act, 1986 in Complaint Nos.197/2011, 198/2011, 199/2011 and 201/2021 against M/s. Nalina Finance Corporation alleging deficiency in service inasmuch as the money invested in fixed deposits not being returned. The said complaints came to be allowed and four awards were passed directing M/s. Nalina Finance Corporation represented by its Managing Partners to pay the sum of Rs.4,25,000/-, Rs.3,50,000/-, Rs.3,75,000/-and Rs.3,00,000/-respectively with interest at 14% p.a., from January 2019 till the date of payment. Pursuant to the orders passed in aforesaid complaints, the complainants filed Execution Petition Nos.13/2012, 14/2012, 15/2012 and 17/2012 under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In the said Execution Petitions subject properties bearing Sy.No.13/2, 88/2, 90/3, 88/3, 90/2, 104/2, 14/1, 89/5BP2, 89/5A, measuring 0-80 Acres, 0-84 Acres, 1-45 Acres, 0-86 Acres, 0-12 Acres, 0-17 Acres, -10 Acres, 0-79 Acres and 1-24 acres respectively situated at Bolanthur Village of Bantwal Taluk, D.K.District came to be attached. The said properties were brought to sale. The 9th respondent purchased the said properties measuring 9.37 acres in the public auction conducted on 25.10.2017 by the 10th respondent – Tahasildar, Bantwal. The said sale proceedings alleged to be suffering from material irregularity, the appellants filed petition under Section 176[1][a] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [‘Act’ for short] before the respondent No.1 which came to be dismissed by communication dated 31.05.2019. Form No.4 was forwarded by 10th respondent to jurisdictional Sub-registrar for effecting necessary entries in the register. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred writ petition which came to be dismissed. Hence, this Writ Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that application under 167 [1] of the Act was filed by the appellants but no determination was made as required under the said provision, by the Revenue Officer. Appellants being the owners of the properties in question allotted to their share by virtue of the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.270/2013, no sale proceedings would have been initiated against the said properties attaching the same pursuant to the order passed by the Consumer Forum against Nalina Finance Corporation which was no way concerned with the appellants.

4. The appellants contended that the properties in question have been allotted to their share in the compromise decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in O.S.No.270/2013 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Bantwal. D.K. There was no order of attachment passed in respect of the properties in question at the time of passing of the said decree. The District Consumer Forum, D.K., Mangalore, ignoring the decree in O.S.No.270/2013 and the subsequent revenue entries has passed an order directing the District Commissioner to recover the amount if not paid by attaching the subject properties. Pursuant to which, the Deputy Commissioner had issued recovery certificate and directed to recover the amount due by sale of the subject properties. Hence, the sale proceedings conducted by the respondent No.10 creating charge on the properties is wholly illegal.

5. Nextly, it was submitted that the paper publication for conducting the auction sale was made on 21.10.2017 and the auction sale was conducted on 25.10.2017 which is not in conformity with Order 21 Rule 68 of CPC. Minimum 15 days time was necessary for conducting the auction sale. Inviting the attention of the Court to Section 173 of the Act, it was argued that the properties to be sold, as far as may be practicable, be proportiona