9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ually the sale was fixed for March 13, 1968. Mean while, the petitioner applied to the Collector on March 6, 1968, for stay of the sale and it is apparent from the order sheets that were produced before us, that a conditional order directing the petitioner to deposit half the amount was made by the Collector but the petitioner did not avail of that concession. It also appears that on the date of sale, the petitioner was present before the Tahsildar who was the Tax Recovery Officer attaching and conducting the sale. Two of the fields, survey Nos. 155 and 156, were eventually put to sale and Rs. 3,600 and Rs. 4,500, respectively, were the price fetched at the auction. By an order of May 15, 1968, the Tahsildar, who was the Tax Recovery Office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itled to entertain the second appeal, for that rule prescribes only one appeal from the original order. The impugned order, according to this submission, is unauthorised and without jurisdiction. For the auction-purchaser it was urged that in fact the first appeal entertained by the Sub-divisional Officer was not competent in view of the terms of rule 86 and no other question arises in the present petition. It was also urged by Mr. Pendsey that there is no right of appeal against an order confirming the sale under rule 63(1) and it is only when an objection is raised and that is rejected the provisions of rule 86 would be attracted. In other words, it is contended that once the sale becomes absolute, it should be treated as final for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector, though the said officer may not be the Collector having the powers of tax recovery. The appeal, therefore, will be entertainable as if the order has been made by the Collector under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code which was then applicable. The provisions of appeal are contained in section 247 and Schedule E of the Code indicates the appellate authority. By item 3, if the order of the officer who is a Collector is to be questioned in an appeal, it is provided that the appellate authority would be the Divisional Commissioner. Therefore, reading rule 86, clause (a), along with the provisions of Schedule II appended to the Income-tax Act, 1961, along with the provisions of section 247, Schedule E, item 3 of the Maha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roperty attached can be brought to sale. It is provided by rule 56 that the sale has to be by public auction and it is always subject to confirmation by the Tax Recovery Officer. This process of confirmation is part of clause (1) of that rule 63. That provides that where no application is made for setting aside the sale under the foregoing rules or where such an application is made and disallowed by the Tax Recovery Officer, the Tax Recovery Officer shall, if the full amount of the purchase-money has been paid, make an order confirming the sale, and, thereupon, the sale shall become absolute. Therefore, reading rule 56 along with clause (1) of rule 63 together, undoubtedly, there is a necessity of making an order by the Tax Recovery Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
