| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 537 1963 SLD 537 1963 AIR 827 (1970) 21 TAX 79 |
Supreme Court of India
on 26 September, 1962
N R AYYANGAR, J
Author. N R Ayyangar Bench. Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala S.P. Varma, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. H.R. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen,
on 26 September, 1962
N R AYYANGAR, J
Author. N R Ayyangar Bench. Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala S.P. Varma, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant. H.R. Khanna, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen,
Ramrao Jankiram Kadam
VS
State Of Bombay on 26 September, 1962
Law:
Section:
ACT: Revenue Sale-Public auction-Connotation of "Sale"Whether sale for predetermined nominal price is such sale-Legality- Suit to set aside sale-Limitation-Waiver and estoppel-Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 (Bom. V. of 1879) Ch. XI, 167, 203--Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876, (Bom.X of 1876), ss. 4(c) and 11-Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), s. 41. HEADNOTE: A sum of about Rs. 9,000 was due from the appellant to the Government on account of excise dues. The movable and immovable property of the appellant was several times put for sale by auction under Ch. XI Bombay Land Revenue Code but the amount remained unrecovered and three items of lands remained unsold. In view of a Government Order dated August, 30, 1933, which prescribed such a course, the Mahalkari sought permission of the Collector to make a nominal bid of Re. 1/for each item of land in the next auction. The permission was granted and the Mahalkari informed the appellant that if no bidders came forward at the next auction the lands would be sold at the nominal price of Re. 1. The auction was held and as no stranger came to bid the Mahalkari made the nominal bid of Re. 1 for each item of land. The bid was accepted and the sales were later confirmed. Subsequently, the Collector sold these lands for adequate consideration and the purchasers were put in possession. The appellant filed a suit challenging the validity of these sales. The purchasers contended that the suit not having been brought within one year of the sales was time barred, that the suit was barred by ss. 4(c) and 1 1 of the Bombay Revenue jurisdiction Act and, that the appellant was disentitled to relief on the ground of acquiescence and estoppel. Held, that the Sales were invalid and the suit was liable to be decreed. The purchase for a predetermined nominal price of Re 1, irrespective of the actual market value was not a sale by public auction as contemplated by s. 167 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. An auction is. a proceeding at which people are invited to compete for purchase of property by successive offers of advancing sums and a sale by auction is a means of ascertaining what the property is worth i.e. its fair…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492