Back
1990 Supreme(HP) 59
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
D.P.SOOD
SATYA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK - Respondent
O. M. P. No. 242 of 1990 in Ex. Pet. No. 35 of 1986
Decided On : 08/17/1990
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s):Mr. K. D. Sood, Advocate for the decree:holder. For the respondent(s):Mr. G. D. Verma, Advocate for the judgment:debtor. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate for the auction: purchaser.
Auction sales must be conducted with sufficient publicity and in a fair and proper manner to ensure the best possible price for the property being sold.
Headnote:
AUCTION SALE - SETTING ASIDE - MATERIAL IRREGULARITY - PUBLICITY - CONDUCT OF SALE - [ORDER 21, RULE 90, C. P. C.] - The court held that the auction sale was conducted with material irregularity as sufficient publicity was not given and the sale was conducted in a great hurry, resulting in the property not fetching an adequate price. The court set aside the sale and ordered a fresh proclamation of sale to be drawn in the presence of the parties or their counsel.
Fact of the Case:
The judgment-debtors filed an application under Order 21, Rule 90 read with section 151, C. P. C. to set aside the auction sale of their land, alleging that there was material irregularity in the sale process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revenue official did not give sufficient publicity to the auction sale, as required by Order 21, Rule 54(3), C. P. C., and that the sale was conducted in a great hurry, with only a few bidders participating in the second auction. The court also found that there was a significant difference in the auction price between the first and second auctions, suggesting that the sale was not conducted fairly.
Issues: 1. Whether sufficient publicity was given to the auction sale? 2. Whether the sale was conducted in a fair and proper manner?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the auction sale was conducted with material irregularity as sufficient publicity was not given and the sale was conducted in a great hurry, resulting in the property not fetching an adequate price. The court relied on Order 21, Rule 54(3), C. P. C., which requires sufficient publicity to be given to auction sales, and on the principle that auction sales must be conducted fairly and in a manner that ensures the best possible price for the property being sold.
Final Decision: The court allowed the application and set aside the auction sale. The court ordered a fresh proclamation of sale to be drawn in the presence of the parties or their counsel.
D. P. Sood, J.—The objectors are the judgment-debtors. They have approached this Court through this application under Order 21, Rule 90 read with section 151, C. P. C. for setting aside the sale and thereafter to hold the auction afresh of the land in dispute.
2. The land in question measuring 30 bighas 10 biswas is a revenue paying land and forms part of Khasra No. 304 located at Mauja Sua, Tehsil Arki, District Solan. The judgment-debtors had consented to the sale of 31 bighas 16 biswas of land standing in the name of Smt. Satya Devi in the revenue record. The major portion thereof is classified as "barani doem". About 13 bighas of land is "ghasani". There is "gair-mumkin-abadi" to the extent of 1 bigha 6 biswas whereupon the residential house of the judgment-debtor is standing. The quinquennial sale price statement as placed on the record indicated the rate as Rs. 639 per bigha. Thus, in that view of the matter and keeping in view the trend of the latest price, the upset price of the land referred to above had been quantified in the sum of Rs. 50,000. Consequent to the issuance of proclamation, the sale was effected on May 16, 1990 at the spot.
3. A bare perusal of the auction pursuant to the warrants of sale qua the immovable property referred to above shows that the highest bid wag given by Karan Singh for consideration of Rs 1,14,000. He was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 28,500 being l/4th share of the bid money. As per the report, he failed to deposit the said sum and the concerned revenue official put the property to auction again and then the highest bid as recorded was given by Vipin Singh for a consideration of Rs. 60,000. The auction-purchaser having deposited the remaining balance amount, prays for the confirmation of the sale.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and I am firmly of the view that this application seeking setting aside of the sale must be allowed. In order to show that there has been a material irregularity in this case, the learned Counsel for the judgment-debtors-applicants drew my attention to (i) that no sufficient publicity was done in regard to the sale in question; and (ii) that the revenue official concerned conducted the sale in a great hurry with the result that a number of prospective bidders could not make their bid and the property in question did not fetch adequate price. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 54, Order 21, C. P. C. envisages that: "The order shall be proclaimed at same place on or adjacent to such property by beat of drum or other customary mode and a copy of the order shall be affixed on a conspicuous part of the property and then upon a conspicuous part of the Court house, and also, where the property island—paying revenue to the Government in the office of the Collector of the district in which the land is situate and also, where the property is situate within cantonment limits, in the office of the Local Cantonment Board and the Military Estates Officer, concerned, and where the property island situate in a village also in the office of the Gram Panchayat if any, having jurisdiction over that village" (emphasis mines).
5. The first point that falls for answer in this case is whether the revenue official did give sufficient publicity to the auction sale with the result that the land in dispute did not fetch adequate price. To my mind, this contention has much substance in it.
6. The record shows that the warrants of sale of immovable property of judgment-debtors were sent to the Collector Solan to get the sale effected. He, in turn, directed the Naib Tehsildar, Arki to conduct the sale according to the time schedule and in accordance with law. The record does not show that the publicity was done by affixing a copy of the proclamation or sale in the office of the Gram Panchayat in which village Sua is located. Apart from it, the record also does not show whether the bidders who were present at the initial auction were or were not present in the se
