DEVTIDEVI DAULATRAM Vs. MOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Daulat Ram since dead whose wife is the appellant before us was the owner of M/s. Durga Prasad Saw Mills. He had defaulted in the payment of employer's share of Provident Fund to a tune of Rs. 24,530/-. After following the procedure, the properties belonging to the said Daulat Ram bearing Survey Nos. 183/4 and 228 situated in two different villages and measuring to an extent of 3.78 acres were brought to revenue sale for recovery of the said Provident Fund amount. The first respondent was the successful bidder in the revenue auction for a sum of Rs. 34,500/- held on 27-6-1977. As per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 he deposited a sum of Rs. 8625/- representing 25 per cent of the bid amount on the spot. As per section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the balance of the bid amount has to be deposited within two months from the date of the auction or 15 days from the confirmation of sale, whichever is earlier. Factually the sale was confirmed on 21-11-1977. The first respondent deposited the 3/4th amount on 26-8-1977 which admittedly beyond 2 months from the date of auction. The appellant, widow of the said Daulat Ram preferred an objection to the Revenue sale. Apart from the appellant, one Banta Singh claiming to be the legatees of Daulat Ram under a will also filed an objection. The objection of Banta Singh was ultimately thrown out and he is not before us and, therefore, we need not consider that further. The objection preferred by the appellant though not accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramtek was accepted by Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division by order dated 26-6-1979. Against that, the first respondent herein preferred a further revision to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra and that Revision was accepted by an order dated 10-10-79. Consequently the objection raised by the appellant was rejected and the auction sale was upheld. Aggrieved by that the appellant preferred a Civil Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by a one line order. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.

(2.) Dr. N. M. Ghatate, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant took us through all the orders of the authorities below and also the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, in particular, Sections 202 and 203 of the Code and contended that the order of the Additional Commissioner was firmly based on Sections 202 and 203 and the Revisional Order of the Government does not contain any valid reason to upset the order of the Additional Commissioner. He also invited our attention to the interim orders passed by this Court at the time of admission of the special leave directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- which was later invested in fixed deposit from time to time.

(3.) Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Minister does not call for any interference and the first respondent should not suffer for any laches on the part of the revenue authorities in delaying the receipt of the balance amount which the first respondent was willing to deposit within time. According to Mr. Venkataramani, the bona fide of the first respondent to deposit the balance amount within time can be verified from the application made by him to the Auctioning Authority, namely, Naib Tehsildar on 16-8-1977 which is well within two months from the date of auction. He submitted that the time fixed for deposit of the balance amount cannot be rigidly viewed and in the facts of this case that should be treated as procedural irregularity not affecting the auction sale itself. In support of that he placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ambati Raghavalu v. Mova Venkamma, AIR 1962 Andh Pra 334.