Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + SC VAT and Sales Tax - 1962 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1962 (9) TMI 48 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether a purchase for a pre-determined nominal price of rupee one for property, whatever its actual market value, is a sale by public auction within section 167 of the Code? Whether a sale for a nominal bid of Re. 1 is a sale by auction within the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue code? Whether the fact that the defaulter was apprised that Government would bid for a nominal sum of one rupee for the property at the auction renders the sale valid? Held that - Appeal allowed in part. Appeal is allowed and the suit decreed as regards the three items of land bearing Survey Nos. 35, 40 and 80. The appeal will however stand dismissed as regards the house in village Kurhe.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of sales of immovable property by the Government for nominal bids. 2. Compliance with statutory provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. 3. Applicability of waiver and estoppel in validating the sale. 4. Bar of limitation and jurisdiction under the Indian Limitation Act and Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. 5. Entitlement to compensation for improvements under the Transfer of Property Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Sales of Immovable Property by the Government for Nominal Bids: The primary issue was whether the sales of the plaintiff's lands to the Government for nominal bids of Re. 1 each were valid. The court held that such sales were not "sales by public auction" as required by section 167 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. An auction is defined as a process where people compete by making successive offers of advancing sums, and a nominal bid does not meet this criterion. The court emphasized that the Bombay Land Revenue Code does not authorize forfeiture or foreclosure of a defaulter's property and that the resolutions of the Government of 1933 and 1936, which allowed for nominal bids, had no statutory force. 2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code: The court examined various sections of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, such as sections 155, 165, 167, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, and 182, which outline the procedure for the realization of land revenue through sales. The court found that the sales in question did not comply with these statutory provisions. Specifically, the sales were not conducted as public auctions, and the procedural requirements, such as the payment of the sale price at the time of the sale and the deposit of 25% of the bid amount, were not met. 3. Applicability of Waiver and Estoppel in Validating the Sale: The court rejected the argument that prior notice to the defaulter about the nominal bid could validate the sale. It held that waiver could not cure the defect of not conducting a public auction, as the power to effect a sale by summary process must be strictly construed. Similarly, the court found no basis for estoppel, as there was no representation by the defaulter that could have prejudiced the Government. 4. Bar of Limitation and Jurisdiction under the Indian Limitation Act and Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act: The court addressed the contention that the suit was barred by Article 11 of the Indian Limitation Act and sections 4(c) and 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. It held that Article 11 did not apply because the sales were not authorized by law, and thus, no title passed from the defaulter. Regarding section 4(c), the court noted that it barred suits to set aside sales for irregularities, but since the sales were void and not merely irregular, this section did not apply. The court also found that section 11 did not bar the suit, as there was no specific provision for an appeal against the administrative decision authorizing the nominal bid. 5. Entitlement to Compensation for Improvements under the Transfer of Property Act: The respondents claimed compensation for improvements made to the property under section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, the court dismissed this plea as it was not raised in the trial court, and no evidence was presented to support it. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal in part, decreeing the suit regarding the three plots of land but dismissing it concerning the house in the village of Kurhe. The appellant was awarded half of the costs of the appeal, excluding costs against the State of Bombay (now Maharashtra).
|