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

1. The controversy in this case may, without caricature, be described as a storm in a teacup.

Reasoning:
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.