ABDUL KAREEM ALIAS MOHAMMED SALEEM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, questioning the legality and validity of the auction notification dated.6th February 2002 bearing No. TAX:BKL.CR:9/2001-02 on the file of the second respondent vide Annexure A, has presented the instant Writ Petition. Further, the petitioner has sought for a declaration, declaring that the sale held on 25th February 2002 as per sale proceedings vide Annexure B as illegal and consequently quash the sale proceedings and also to quash the order of confirmation of sale held on 9th August 2002 bearing No. Ddis.Tax.CR. 17/2002-03 vide Annexure H on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner was in arrears of tax to the Commercial Tax Department to the tune of Rs. 7,691/- and the Commercial Tax Department has referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for Recovery to initiate the revenue recovery proceedings against the father of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, in turn, has directed the second respondent to initiate the revenue proceedings against the father of the petitioner as envisaged under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The second respondent herein has issued the auction Notification dated 6th February 2002 vide Annexure A, fixing the date of auction on 25th February 2002 at 11.00 A.M. in the Office of the second respondent. Accordingly, the auction was held on 25th February 2002. The third respondent herein and two other persons participated in the said auction and the third respondent herein was the highest bidder. In pursuance of the highest bid caused in the auction alleged to have been conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Nadakacheri, Panja, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada Dist., the third respondent has alleged to have deposited 25% of the auction bid amount. Be that as it may.

(3.) The father of the petitioner had paid the arrears of tax to the Commercial Tax Department on I4th March 2002 in a sum of Rs. 7,691/-. Thereafter, in pursuance of the communication from the Tax Department, demanding a sum of Rs. 1,320/-, being the cost of the alleged auction conducted by the Deputy Tahsildar, Sulya Taluk, the father of the petitioner has deposited the said amount vide Annexure D. When things stood thus, the third respondent herein has given the application dated 4th April 2002 vide Annexure E, requesting the second respondent to refund the amount deposited by her on the ground that subsequent to auction, the father of the petitioner has paid the amount to the Tax Department. Thereafter, the second respondent has sent the impugned communication dated 19th April 2002 vide Annexure F to the father of the petitioner directing him to pay 5% interest to the auction purchaser namely the third respondent herein on 25% of the auction bid amount deposited by her. Thereafter, the notice was sent on 13th May 2002 vide Annexure G demanding Rs. 2,600/- being the 5% interest on the 25 % of the auction bid amount. Without taking into consideration the subsequent developments as stated supra, the first respondent herein has confirmed the auction in favour of the third respondent by his order dated 9th August 2002 vide Annexure A. Before confirmation of the auction by the first respondent, the brother of the petitioner has filed an application under Section 176 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the auction sale proceedings, which was not in accordance with law. The said application filed by the brother of the petitioner has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner - the first respondent herein on the ground that, the said application has not been filed within 90 days from the date of conducting of auction, by its order dated 5th November 2003. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the impugned alleged auction notification held, without the authorisation by the competent authority and confirmation order passed by the first respondent, has approached this Court On the ground that, the entire proceedings initiated and concluded by respondents 1 and 2 are contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and contrary to the material on record. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court assailing the impugned orders referred above.