KALLAPPA Vs. MUDAKAPPA PARAPPA CHAKRASALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (MRAT) in Appeal No. 1393 of 1970 (MLR). It arises in this way: The petitioner was a surety to the second respondent herein in respect of a loan of Rs.250 which had been borrowed by him from the Government on 23-6-1961. It would appear that the second respondent was a defaulter in regard to a sum of Rs.150 concerning such loan. The properties of the petitioner were brought to sale. It is not disputed that such dues are recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the appropriate provisions of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The two properties in question are S.No.67 admeasuring 2 acres, 3 guntas and S.No 117 admeasuring 8 acres. Both these properties are situated in Guttageri Village, Haliyal Taluk and belong to the petitioner. These two properties were also included at the time of attachment in respect of the recovery of the debt in question. S.No.67, smaller in extent, had been valued at Rs.3,300 and S.No. 117 which is larger of the two had been valued at Rs.4,016. These properties were brought to sale on 16-1-1970 and the first respondent herein was the successful bidder. It would appear that the petitioner filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner, without actually depositing the amount as per S.176 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The Assistant Commissioner is stated to have made an order directing the Tahsildar to accept the amount and cancel the sale. Thereafter, nothing appears to have been done pursuant to this direction to the Tahsildar. The petitioner, however, deposited the amount with solatium and such other dues on 22-6-1970 and made an application for setting aside the sale. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dt.20-7-1970 set aside the sale. The first respondent, however, took the matter in appeal before the, MRAT in Appeal No.1393/70(MLR). The said Tribunal, set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner thus dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the sale. The result was that the sale stood confirmed. Hence this petition by the petitioner.

(2.) It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that in holding the sale, the authorities had transgressed the requirements of S. 173 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act. The said provision reads thus:

(3.) It is clear from the above averment that the first respondent was not quite certain whether S.No.67 was at all put up for sale. But be that as it may, the records of the sale have been made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader. It is clear from the relevant writings therein, that one of the reasons given for putting up S.No.117 for sale was that it would be sufficient for the recovery of the debt due. It is no doubt stated therein that there was no demand for S.No.67. This is not to say S.No.67 had been put up for sale. It may be that at the time of sale, the persons interested might have asked for putting for sale S.No.117 in the first instance. Any way the matter is clearly shrouded in doubt. It is next contended on behalf of the first respondent that it is at best an irregularity and in the absence of prejudice to the petitioner, the sale should not be interfered with. In support of such a contention, reliance was placed on an enunciation of the Supreme Court in Radhy Shyam v. Shyam Bellari, AIR 1971 SC 2337. That case is clearly of no assistance to the first respondent at all. That was a case where the Court was concerned with an allegation of material irregularity on the ground that the price realised was inadequate. Indeed the enunciation relied on occurs at paragraph 10 of the report and reads thus :