CAPTAIN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful petitioner in O.P. 13768 of 1996 is the appellant herein. The Original Petition was filed to quash Ext. P5 and for a mandamus directing the respondents to confirm the sale conducted on 23.9.1994 and direct the third respondent to measure the property and put in possession of the property to the petitioner. A further prayer to declare that the Order No. 6714/94/M dated 30.3.1995 issued by the second respondent and Ext. P5 dated 5.7.1996 are null and void was also sought for.

(2.) Appellant is the successful bidder in the sale conducted on 23.9.1994. He has deposited the entire bid amount of Rs. 10,868/- as per the instructions of the third respondent in respect of 13 cents of wet land (paddy field) in Sy. No. 635/2 of Chowara village. Since the sale certificate was not issued, the appellant made Exts. P3 and P4 representations to respondents 1 and 2 respectively for issuance of sale certificate to which he is entitled. However, the sale certificate was not issued to him. But, he was served with Ext. P5 order dated 5.7.1996 stating that on the basis of an order dated 30.3.1995, the sale has been set aside since the bid amount was too low. It is stated that only on receipt of Ext. P5 order the appellant came to know about the order dated 30.3.1995 of the second respondent. Immediately he applied for a copy of the same, obtained it and produced the same before this Court as Ext. P6 along with CMP 25857 of 1996. According to the appellant, he is entitled to get the sale confirmed and also for a sale certificate issued in his favour. Since the same were not issued, he approached this Court by filing the above Original Petition praying to quash Ext. P5 and also to declare that Ext. P6 is illegal and void and for other consequential reliefs.

(3.) Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that since the appellant is the highest bidder in the auction conducted on 23.9.1994, respondents are duty bound to confirm the auction in his favour. It was also argued that there was no objection filed by anyone to set aside the sale and that before conducting a reauction, no notice was issued to him. It was also contended before the learned Judge that inadequacy of sale price is not a ground to set aside the sale. The learned Judge was of the view that since the auction was not confirmed in favour of the appellant, there was no necessity of giving any notice to the petitioner to show cause why a reauction be riot conducted. The learned Judge has further held that since the decision of the Sub Collector has already been communicated to the appellant petitioner by the Tahsildar which is evident from Ext. P6, there is sufficient notice to him that the auction in his favour has not been confirmed. Aggrieved against the said judgment, the petitioner has preferred the Writ Appeal.