PATHUBHAI VASHRAMBHAI RAJPUT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Land admeasuring 15 acres, forming part of Survey No. 371, situated at village Merupar, Taluka Halvad, was ordered to be auctioned by the Collector, District Surendranagar, respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner had participated at the said auction and he had offered Rs. 10,400/- per acre. The said offer was the highest. In spite of the said fact, sale in favour of the petitioner was not confirmed and by an order dated 10th October, 1997, respondent No. 2 had ordered that the proceedings of the said auction should be cancelled. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner had approached respondent No. 1 by filing a revision application. The said revision application has been rejected by an order dated 5th February, 1999. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5th February, 1999 and order dated 10th October, 1997, passed by respondent No. 2, the petitioner has approached this Court, with a prayer that the said orders be quashed and set aside and the respondent-authorities be directed to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner and hand over possession of the land in question to the petitioner.

(2.) It is pertinent to note that even at an earlier occasion, when the sale was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner had challenged the order of the Collector and the revision application, which was filed at an earlier occasion, was also rejected. The petitioner had thereafter, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 5786 of 1996, which was allowed and by virtue of the order passed in the said petition, the Collector, i.e., respondent No. 2, was given certain directions and was asked to reconsider the matter in the light of the observation made in the order. After the matter was remanded to the Collector, the Collector had considered the matter again, and thereafter, by an order dated 10th October, 1997, which has been referred to hereinabove, he has decided not to confirm the sale in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Ravani, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the Collector ought to have confirmed sale in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner had offered the highest amount. Upset price determined in respect of the land in question was Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the petitioner had offered Rs. 10,400/- per acre. According to him, no financial loss would be caused to the Government by virtue of the sale, and therefore, there was no reason for the Collector not to confirm the sale. Moreover, he has submitted that no person had ever objected to the sale. Had someone objected to the auction by filing an application under the provisions of Sec. 178 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), the things would have been different, but, in the instant case, as there was no application or objection filed by any one against the same, it was the duty of the Collector to confirm the sale. Moreover, he has submitted that the reason, for which the sale has not been confirmed, is not just and proper. The Collector has observed in the order that by beat of drum the details with regard to the auction were not duly notified at Village Merupar. It has been submitted by him that in these modern days, notification or publication of an auction sale by beat of drum would not have much importance. He has submitted that there was participation by three persons at the auction and except Village Merupar, at all other places, the proposed auction was duly advertised. In the circumstances, he has submitted that the Collector ought not to have given more weightage to non-publication of the details of the auction by beat of drum at Village Merupar.