9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revenue auction sale. 2. Compliance with Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Compliance with Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Revenue Auction Sale: The appellant contended that the revenue auction sale conducted was illegal. The primary arguments were that the loan amount was not outstanding at the time of sale, the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and principles of natural justice were violated, and the land was sold for a significantly lower amount than its actual value. The court rejected the first argument, stating that once the court-auction sale was set aside and the appellant received restitution, the auction purchaser became a stranger to the property. Consequently, the amount paid by the auction purchaser was rightly refunded, and the loan amount remained outstanding. The court also examined the compliance with Sections 36 and 44 of the Act to address the second and third arguments. 2. Compliance with Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act: Section 36 requires a notice of sale to be affixed on the land to be sold. The appellant argued that this notice was not affixed, which was found to be true by the court. The court discussed whether this failure constituted a material irregularity or an illegality. The court referenced the Board's Standing Order 41, which classifies such a failure as an illegality. The court concluded that the failure to affix the sale notice on the land was a basic and inescapable obligation, and its non-compliance vitiated the sale. Therefore, the sale was set aside on this ground. 3. Compliance with Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act: Section 44 stipulates that only a portion of the land sufficient to discharge the arrears should be sold. The appellant argued that the entire land was sold, which was contrary to this provision. The court found that the amount due was only Rs. 2,518, but the entire land of 3.40 acres was sold, which violated Section 44. The court held that this violation constituted an illegality, as the sale should have been limited to a portion sufficient to recover the amount due. This illegality further vitiated the sale. Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of Ramanujam, J., and quashed the revenue sale. The court concluded that the failure to comply with Sections 36 and 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act constituted illegalities that vitiated the sale. The court rejected the request for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the case did not need to be decided by the Supreme Court based on the admitted facts and application of the relevant sections of the Act.
|
