Case: Gowrisetti Venkataiah Vs. District Collector, Karimnagar and Others

KRISHNA IYER, J.1. The controversy in this case may, without caricature, be described as a storm in a teacup. A sale of the property of the second respondent, who was an Abkari contractor in arrears, was held by the tahsildar and the purchaser, the highest bidder, is the appellant. The bid amount for which the sale was knocked down was Rs. 4050. Although the total amount due from the Abkari contractor was Rs. 8, 000 odd, part of it was penalty for default in payment, which eventually was waived by the State Government. Thus, what was realisable from the contractor was only Rs. 5429.67. The sale having fetched Rs. 4050, a balance of Rs. 1379.67 is all that the State is entitled to get. In the light of what we propose to hold and, on a suggestion from the Court, the appellant has agreed to deposit the balance of Rs. 1379.67 rounded off into Rs. 1380 into the treasury within one month from today.2. The litigation itself arose by way of a writ petition challenging the setting aside of the sale by the Board of Revenue. According to the appellant-auction purchaser, there was no legal ground or even power to set aside the sale which had already been confirmed. The High Court, at the second tier, i.e. in appeal before the Division Bench, took the view that the sale was bad and liable to be set aside on the short ground that the balance of 75% of the sale price had not been deposited within 30 days of the receipt of the notice as required by Section 135(b)(2). We have been taken by counsel for the appellant, Shri Gupte, through the basic facts necessary for appreciating his contention that his client had actually made the deposit within 30 days. It is a simple case of slip-up on the part of the High Court. Therefore, we see no way to uphold the finding of the High Court that the deposit was made beyond time and the sale was void. In the result, we allow the appeal, hold the sale good but direct as earlier stated that the appellant do deposit Rs. 1380 which means that the State would have realised the entire arrear due from the Abkari contractor. It is worthwhile noticing that the latter has not cared to appear in this Court or contest the claim of the appellant that the sale be upheld.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]2. The litigation itself arose by way of a writ petition challenging the setting aside of the sale by the Board of Revenue. According to thepurchaser, there was no legal ground or even power to set aside the sale which had already been confirmed. The High Court, at the second tier, i.e. in appeal before the Division Bench, took the view that the sale was bad and liable to be set aside on the short ground that the balance of 75% of the sale price had not been deposited within 30 days of the receipt of the notice as required by Section 135(b)(2). We have been taken by counsel for the appellant, Shri Gupte, through the basic facts necessary for appreciating his contention that his client had actually made the deposit within 30 days. It is a simple case ofon the part of the High Court. Therefore, we see no way to uphold the finding of the High Court that the deposit was made beyond time and the sale was void. In the result, we allow the appeal, hold the sale good but direct as earlier stated that the appellant do deposit Rs. 1380 which means that the State would have realised the entire arrear due from the Abkari contractor. It is worthwhile noticing that the latter has not cared to appear in this Court or contest the claim of the appellant that the sale be upheld.