Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 3616
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
P. Arumugham
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Others
W.A.No.3861 of 2003, W.P.No.36958 of 2005, W.A.M.P.Nos.6295 to 6297 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.39600 and 39601 of 2005
Decided On : 16-11-2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of conducting public auctions in a fair and transparent manner for the disposal of public property, as mandated by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.
Headnote:
auction - property dispute - Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act - Section 34, Section 116(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, particularly Section 34 and Section 116(2), and emphasized the importance of conducting public auctions in a fair and transparent manner for the disposal of public property.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant leased a property for drying yarn, later proposed to purchase it, and made a sale deed. The sale was challenged, leading to a series of litigations and auctions. The appellant challenged the auction held in 2003, which resulted in the sale of the property to the ninth respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the earlier auction lost its significance due to the passage of time and the increased land value. It emphasized the importance of protecting the deity's interest and conducting public auctions in a fair and transparent manner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be permitted to complete the transaction by matching the offer given by the ninth respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that, in the interest of justice and the protection of the deity, it was not fit to accept the appellant's submission to complete the transaction by matching the offer given by the ninth respondent. It emphasized the need for conducting a fresh auction in a fair and transparent manner.
Final Decision: The court directed the conduct of a fresh auction to sell the property, belonging to the third respondent, through tender-cum-auction by fixing the upset price at Rs.2 crores. It also ordered the refund of the deposited amounts to the present appellant and the ninth respondent.
K.K. Sasidharan, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10. 2003 in W.P.No.28025 of 2003 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant to declare the auction held on 10. 2003 in respect of the property of the third respondent in T.S.Nos.2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751 at Cuddalore as null and void.
2. The writ petition is preferred against the order dated 16. 2003 on the file of District Registrar, Cuddalore in Appeal No.1 of 2002 confirming the order of the Sub Registrar II, Cuddalore dated 9. 2002 whereby the sale deed in respect of the property in T.S.Nos. 2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751, which was kept pending for registration was returned to the petitioner.
.3. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of the writ appeal and the writ petition are as follows:-
.The immovable property having an extent of 4.84 acres in T.S.Nos.2750/1, 2750/2 and 2751 in Cuddalore Taluk in the District of Cuddalore was taken on lease by the appellant as per document dated 16. 1986 for the period from 7. 1986 to 30.6.1989 on an yearly lease amount of Rs.2,500/- for the sole purpose of drying yarn.
4. The appellant later made a proposal to purchase the property and the second respondent as per proceedings dated 5. 1987 permitted the sale in favour of the appellant on payment of consideration at Rs.2,30,000/-with a further stipulation to deposit the said amount in accordance with Section 116(2) of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter referred to as H.R. & C.E. Act). The sale deed duly executed by the third respondent, on receipt of sale consideration was presented for registration before the sixth respondent.
5. In the meantime one C.S. Dhandapani challenged the sale in favour of the appellant, before the Government under Section 34(iv) of the H.R.& C.E. Act besides filing a writ petition in W.P.No.6423 of 1987 to set aside the sale. In the course of the said writ petition, the petitioner offered a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the property, which resulted in enhancing the offer by the appellant at Rs.3,05,000/-and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of as per order dated 21. 1988.
6. The order in W.P.No.6423 of 1987 was challenged by the writ petitioner in Writ Appeal and a Division Bench of this Court having found that the sale by private negotiation was not in the interest of the institution and the sale consideration of Rs.3,05,000/- was not commensurate with the value of the property, disposed of the writ appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the Government to decide the appeal under Section 34(iv) of the Act on merits.
.7. The statutory appeal came to be disposed of by the Government as per order dated 21. 1993 whereby the sale in favour of the appellant was set aside and directed sale of the property by public auction by fixing the upset price at Rs.3,05,000/-. The said order was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.5243 of 1993 and the learned Single Judge as per order dated 110. 1994 remitted the matter to the Government to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made in the order.
8. The order in W.P.No.5243 of 1993 was challenged by the third respondent in Writ Appeal No.35 of 1995 and the said appeal was disposed of by a Division bench as per judgment dated 23. 1995 whereby the order in W.P.No.5243 of 1993 was set aside and directed sale of the property in public auction. The Division Bench had given a further direction that in the event, the sale fetches an amount higher than the amount deposited by the appellant with interest that was accrued up to the date of the auction plus Rs.75,000/-, the sale may be confirmed in favour of the highest bidder and the amount deposited by the appellant be refunded to him with interest. But in the event, the auction fetches less than the said sum, the sale deed must be registered in the name of the appellant pro
