Case: Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh

is nobody’s case, that at the time of the auction-purchase, the value of the property purchased by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha was in excess of his bid. In fact, the factual position depicted under paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment reveals, that the escalation of prices had taken place thereafter, and the value of the property purchased by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha was presently much higher than the bid amount. Since it was nobody’s case that Sadashiv Prasad Sinha, the highest bidder at the auction conducted on 28.8.2008, had purchased the property in question at a price lesser than the then prevailing market price, there was no justification whatsoever to set aside the auction-purchase made by him on account of escalation of prices thereafter. The High Court in ignoring the vested right of the appellant in the property in question, after his auction bid was accepted and confirmed, subjected him to grave injustice by depriving him to property which he had genuinely and legitimately purchased at a public auction. In our considered view, not only did the Division Bench of the High Court in the matter by ignoring the sound, legal and clear principles laid down by this Court in respect of a third party auction purchaser, the High Court also clearly overlooked the equitable rights vested in the auction-purchaser during the pendency of a lis. The High Court also clearly overlooked the equitable rights vested in the auction purchaser while disposing of the matter. 15. At the time of hearing, we were thinking of remanding the matter to the Recovery Officer to investigate into the objection of Harender Singh under Rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961. But considering the delay such a remand may cause, we have ourselves examined the objections of Harender Singh and reject the objections for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the contention raised at the hands of the respondents before the High Court, that the facts narrated by Harender Singh (the appellant in Special Leave Petition (C) No.26550 of 2010) were a total sham, as he was actually the brother of one of the judgment-debtors, namely, Jagmohan Singh. And that Harender Singh had created an unbelievable story with the connivance and help of his brother, so as to save the property in question. The claim of Harender Singh in his objection petition, was based on an unregistered agreement to sell dated 10.1.1991. Not only that such an agreement to sell would not vest any legal right in his favour; it is apparent that it may not have been difficult for him to have had the aforesaid agreement to sell notarized in connivance with his brother, for the purpose sought to be achieved. Secondly, it is apparent from the factual position depicted in the foregoing paragraphs that Harender Singh, despite his having filed objections before the Recovery Officer, had abandoned the contest raised by him by not appearing (and by not being represented) before the Recovery Officer after 26.10.2005, whereas, the Recovery Officer had passed the order of sale of the property by way of public auction more than two years thereafter, only on 5.5.2008. Having abandoned his claim before the Recovery Officer, it was not open to him to have reagitated the same by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Thirdly, a remedy of appeal was available to Harender Singh in respect of the order of the Recovery Officer assailed by him before the High Court under Section 30, which is being extracted herein to assail the order dated 5.5.2008: “30. Appeal against the order of Recovery Officer.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 29, any person aggrieved by an order of the Recovery Officer made under this Act may, within thirty days from the date on which a copy of the order is issued to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.(2) On receipt of an appeal under sub-section (1), the Tribunal may, after giving an opportunity to the appellant to be heard, and after making such inquiry as it deems fit, confirm, modify or set aside the order made by the Recovery Officer in exercise of his powers under section 25 to 28 (both inclusive).” 16. The High Court ought not to have interfered with in the matter agitated by Harender Singh in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In fact, the learned Single Judge rightfully dismissed the writ petition filed by Harender Singh. Fourthly, Harender Singh could not be allowed to raise a challenge to the public auction held on 28.8.2008 because he had not raised any objection to the attachment of the property in question or the proclamations and notices issued in newspapers in connection with the auction thereof. All these facts cumulatively lead to the conclusion that after 26.10.2005, Harender Singh had lost all interest in the property in question and had therefore, remained a silent spectator to various orders which came to be passed from time to time. He had, therefore, no equitable right in his favour to assail the auction-purchase made by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 28.8.2008. Finally, the public auction under reference was held on 28.8.2008. Thereafter the same was confirmed on 22.09.2008. Possession of the property was handed over to the auction-purchaser Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 11.3.2009. The auction-purchaser initiated mutation proceedings in respect of the property in question. Harender Singh did not raise any objections in the said mutation proceedings. The said mutation proceedings were also finalized in favour of Sadashiv Prasad Sinha. Harender Singh approached the High Court through CWJC No.16485 of 209 only on 27.11.2009. We are of the view that the challenged raised by Harender Singh ought to have been rejected on the grounds of delay and latches, especially because third party rights had emerged in the meantime. More so, because the auction purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for consideration, having purchased the property in furtherance of a duly publicized public auction, interference by the High Court even on ground of equity was clearly uncalled for. 17.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court ought not to have interfered with in the matter agitated by Harender Singh in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. In fact, the learned Single Judge rightfully dismissed the writ petition filed by Harender Singh. Fourthly, Harender Singh could not be allowed to raise a challenge to the public auction held on 28.8.2008 because he had not raised any objection to the attachment of the property in question or the proclamations and notices issued in newspapers in connection with the auction thereof. All these facts cumulatively lead to the conclusion that after 26.10.2005, Harender Singh had lost all interest in the property in question and had therefore, remained a silent spectator to various orders which came to be passed from time to time. He had, therefore, no equitable right in his favour to assail the auction-purchase made by Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 28.8.2008. Finally, the public auction under reference was held on 28.8.2008. Thereafter the same was confirmed on 22.09.2008. Possession of the property was handed over to the auction-purchaser Sadashiv Prasad Sinha on 11.3.2009. The auction-purchaser initiated mutation proceedings in respect of the property in question. Harender Singh did not raise any objections in the said mutation proceedings. The said mutation proceedings were also finalized in favour of Sadashiv Prasad Sinha. Harender Singh approached the High Court through CWJC No.16485 of 209 only on 27.11.2009. We are of the view that the challenged raised by Harender Singh ought to have been rejected on the grounds of delay and latches, especially because third party rights had emerged in the meantime. More so, because the auction purchaser was a bona fide purchaser for consideration, having purchased the property in furtherance of a duly publicized public auction, interference by the High Court even on ground of equity was clearly uncalled for.