DOSHI MOHANLAL DURLABHJI Vs. SAVARKUNDLA MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Bhavnagar in Regular Civil Appeal no. 23 of 1977 allowing the appeal of Savarkundla Municipality and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. Junior Division Savarkundla in Civil Suit no. 22 of 1973 in favour of the plaintiff (present appellant) restraining the defendant Municipality (present respondent) from re-auctioning or reselling plots nos. 1 and 8 from the land of Krishna Oil Mill Savarkundla.

(2.) The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that the defendant-Munici- pality had published an advertisement for auctioning various plots of Krishna Oil Mill land of Savarkundla and according to the accepted position at the auction held on 25-4-1968 he was the highest bidder for plot no. 1 and 8 and his bid for plot no. 1 was Rs. 10 325 and for plot no. 8 was Rs. 11 501 According to the plaintiff this auction was confirmed by the municipality and therefore as per the conditions plots were to be given to the highest bidder and the highest bidder had to pay one-half of the purchase price on acceptance of the bid and second condition was that the balance of the purchase price was to be paid within 15 days of the acceptance on the information given by the muni- cipality. According to the plaintiff he was given notices by the munici- pality on 26-4-1968 to deposit half the price for those two plots. Those notices are Exs. 44 and 45. According to the plaintiff he went to pay the said amount but he was informed that as there was stay order from the Collector the amount would not be accepted. It is therefore his case that he did not receive any intimation thereafter to pay the amount.

(3.) As against this it is the case of the defendant-municipality that the plaintiff was sent intimation to pay up the amounts) hut as he did not pay the same the auction in favour of the plaintiff was cancelled and the municipality arranged to re-auction the plots. As the municipality attempted to re-auction the plots the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for injunction restraining the municipality from auctioning the said plots which were purchased by him as a highest bidder in the auction.