IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, K. LAKSHMAN, JJ.
K. Anjaiah and Another - Petitioners
Versus
The Asst. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 711 of 2008 & Writ Appeal No. 911 of 2008
Decided On : 26-05-2022
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 - Section 36 - Auction was cancelled - Restore agricultural property - Re-deliver land - Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with Order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. in so far as learned Single Judge, denied relief sought by appellants i.e., direction to Government to restore agricultural property – Held, Notice is given to petitioners that Government desires to purchase nominally, yet that does not make such a purchase good and is ab-initio and no title would pass to Government - Legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, superstructure falls - Auction conducted by official respondents is illegal and in violation of procedure laid down under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, Sale Certificate issued by District Collector in Proceedings, subsequent assignment made by Government in favour of respondent No.5 in respect of land and subsequently Sale by respondent No.5 in favour of respondent vide Registered Sale Deed are set aside - Writ Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K. Lakshman, J.
Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.150 of 2001, in so far as learned Single Judge, denied relief sought by the appellants i.e., direction to the Government to restore agricultural property admeasuring Ac.09-06 gts., in Sy.No.117 and 121 (old) and 124, 128/2 (new) assigned in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with house property bearing Door.No.1-42, in Sy.No.117 and 121 (New Survey Nos.124 and 128/2) of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, Writ Appeal No.711 of 2008 is filed by the Writ Petitioners.
2. Likewise, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.150 of 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge, directed the respondents No.1 to 3 to re-deliver the land admeasuring Ac.2-19 gts., in Sy.No.128 to the Writ Petitioners, Writ Appeal No.911 of 2008 is filed by respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the said Writ Petition.
3. Heard Sri. S. Sriramachandra Murthy, learned Counsel for the Appellants in W.A.No.711 of 2008, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue in W.A.No.911 of 2008 for appellants and Sri. C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.6 in W.A.No.711 of 2008.
4. W.A.M.P.No.1 of 2018 in W.A.No.711 of 2008 is filed to bring the petitioner therein as appellant No.3 in Appeal. Having satisfied with the reasons and also considering the Death Certificate dated 21-06-2016 issued by the Executive Officer, Ravulapally Kalan Grampanchayath, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District, showing the Date of Death of first petitioner i.e., K. Anjaiah as 18-04-2016, this Application is ordered.
FACTS:
5. K. Anjaiah and K. Narahari, sons of Sri. K. Rama Goud, have filed Writ Petition No.150 of 2021, initially, seeking a direction to respondents therein forthwith hand over to the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.11.26 gts., along with the house property bearing Door.No.1-42, in Sy.No.117 and 121 (New Survey Nos.124 and 128/2) of Burugupally Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. Thereafter, they have filed an application in W.P.M.P.No.8870 of 2008 seeking to amend the prayer and the same was allowed. Thus the Writ Petitioners have sought to declare the alleged auction and purchasing an extent of Ac.14.21 gts and a house in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (New Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) situated at Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, for an appalling low rate of Rs.60/- belonging to the petitioners’ father, while he holds Ac.11.26 gts., as per Revenue Records, without following the mandatory provisions, and assigning the same to respondent Nos.5 and 6, as illegal and they also sought consequential direction to the respondents to re-deliver the possession of Ac.11.26 gts along with house property in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (New Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) situated at Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District, by cancelling the assignment.
6. The parties are referred as they arrayed in the Writ Petition, for the sake of convenience.
7. The Writ Petitioners’ father Sri. Rama Goud is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.11.25 gts. of agricultural land in Sy.Nos.117 and 121 (new Sy.Nos.124 and 128/2) and a house bearing Door No.1-42, Burugupalli Village, Mominpet Mandal, Rangareddy District. He was an Excise Contractor. He had toddy contract of Marpally Kalan Village of Marpally Mandal for 1367 fasli, corresponding year of 1957-58, and he had mortgaged the above said agricultural land and house properties as security for payment of rentals in respect of the said toddy shop. He fell arrears of rentals to the Government to a tune of Rs.3,393/- and therefore, the Government initiated Recovery Proceedings under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for the sale of the mortgaged property, and recovery of the said amount.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the first auction was conducted in 1958 for a sum of Rs.2,725/-,
Pasupuleti Krishna Murthy Vs. Annadasu Bapanayya and others
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Venugopal
The Tahasildar, Taluk Office, Thanjore and others Vs. G. Thambidurai and another
Ramrao Jankiram Kadam Vs. State of Bombay
Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi And Ors.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath
Vijay Shekhar and another Vs. Union of India and others
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others Vs. Ananta Saha and others
SupremeToday
The provisions contained in Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seek to protect a subsequent purchaser who purchases the property in good faith and for value without notice of the original co....
The court affirmed the validity of a mortgage auction, emphasizing banks' rights over secured properties despite challenges from subsequent purchasers and procedural compliance in auction processes.
The importance of proper valuation, fair auction, and maximum public participation in the auction process was emphasized by the court.
The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.
A bona fide purchaser at auction is protected, and a writ petition challenging the confirmation of sale is not maintainable if filed beyond the statutory period.
(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 ....
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.