9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, has directed the second respondent to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings against the father of the petitioner as envisaged under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The second respondent herein has issued the auction notification dated February 6, 2002, vide annexure A, fixing the date of auction on February 25, 2002 at 11 A.M. in the office of the second respondent. Accordingly, the auction was held on February 25, 2002. The third respondent herein and two other persons participated in the said auction and the third respondent herein was the highest bidder. In pursuance of the highest bid caused in the auction alleged to have been conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakacheri, Panja, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, the third respondent has alleged to have deposited 25 per cent of the auction bid amount. Be that as it may. 3. The father of the petitioner had paid the arrears of tax to the Commercial Tax Department on March 14, 2002 in a sum of Rs. 7,691. Thereafter, in pursuance of the communication from the Tax Department, demanding a sum of Rs. 1,320, being the cost of the alleged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed by the authorities are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Act and are arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Further, he submitted that, the respondents could not have sold the schedule property for recovery of paltry sum of Rs. 7,691 when the value of the property is more than rupees ten lakhs. The respondents without properly assessing the value of the property have exceeded the jurisdiction by notifying the property for sale and confirmed the said sale without following due procedure and also acted unreasonably in the matter of selling Schedule property and confirming the same. Further, he vehemently submitted that, as a matter of fact, the father of the petitioner has already paid the arrears of tax to the tax department and the same was accepted and also the cost of the auction conducted by respondents 1 and 2 through Deputy Tahsildar, Sulya Taluk, has also been paid. 5.. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, in view of the well-settled law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Ambati Narasayya v. Subba Rao reported in AIR 1990 SC 119 and in the case of Desh Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh reported in (1993) 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner or the respondents 1 and 2. She submits that, she does not have any material nor has she stated anything with regard to that aspect in her statement of objections. 8.. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, after thorough evaluation of the material available on record, with the assistance of the respective counsel appearing for the parties and after careful perusal of the impugned auction notification issued by the second respondent vide annexure A, dated February 6, 2002 and the confirmation order passed by the first respondent vide annexure H, dated August 9, 2002, it is evident on the face of the auction notification and the confirmation order that, both the authorities have committed an error of law and irregularity resulting in serious miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 9.. It is not in dispute that, the father of the petitioner was in arrears of tax to be paid to the Commercial Tax Department. In view of non-payment of the said amount, the Commercial Tax Department has requested the revenue authorities to initiate proceedings for recovery of the said tax amount of Rs. 7,691 under the Land Revenue Act. In the instant case, it is si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecide whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached property to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is large and the decree to be satisfied is small, the court must bring only such portion of the property, the proceeds of which would be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree-holder. It is immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if the property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without violating any provision of law only such portion of the property should be sold. This, in our opinion, is not just a discretion, but an obligation imposed on the court. Care must be taken to put only such portion of the property to sale the consideration of which is sufficient to meet the claim in the execution petition. The sale held without examining this aspect and not in conformity with this requirement would be illegal and without jurisdiction." Further, the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Desh Bandu Gupta v. N.L. Anand and Rajinder Singh (1993) 5 JT SC 313 has held as follows: "The non-application of mind whether sale of a part of the property would satisfy the decree debt is a material irre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent, as stated supra, cannot be accepted, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the manner in which the respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded and passed the impugned orders. The confirmation order passed by the first respondent is one without jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the father of the petitioner has paid the entire arrears of tax to the Commercial Tax Department and the said department has failed to communicate to the Deputy Commissioner. In view of non co-ordination between the revenue department and the tax department, the petitioner should not be deprived of his valuable rights in the property in question. After the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner succeeds the said property along with the family members and this fact is not disputed by the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 orally or in the statement of objections filed by her. As a matter of fact, the respondents 1 and 2 have in their objections stated in unequivocal terms that, the father of the petitioner has paid the sum of Rs. 7,691 to the Commercial Tax Department, Puttur, on March 14, 2002 and again a sum of Rs. 1,320 on March 16, 2002 towards the expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
