KOORA ANANTHA REDDY Vs. SINSETTI MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the Judgment of our learned brother Seshachelapati, J., made in Writ Petition No. 91 of 1959 quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 16th October, 1958, in File No. 14433/2/57. The facts of the case are as follows : The petitioner was an Excise Contractor of certain villages in Parkal taluk, Warrangal district. He fell into large arrears and by way of recovery of sums due to the Government, his properties were brought to sale by the revenue authorities on 8th January, 1957, for the recovery of excise arrears amounting to Rs. 19,009-13-0. The appellant in this appeal was the second respondent in the writ petition. He was the auction-purchaser. On 9th January, 1957, the petitioner in the writ petition submitted a petition to the Collector alleging inter alia that the properties were auctioned on 8th January, 1957, without proper proclamation of sale and praying for the setting aside of the sale. A similar application was filed by the father of the contractor on 15th January, 1957. By an order dated 13th March, 1957, the Collector confirmed the sale. The petitioner thereupon filed an application before the Board of Revenue to set aside the same without impleading the auction-purchaser. By an order, dated 25th July, 1957, the Board of Revenue set aside the sale on the ground that the mandatory provisions of section 130 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act were not followed before the property was sold. The auction-purchaser filed a revision petition before the Government of Andhra Pradesh against the order of the Board of Revenue setting aside the sale. The Government took the view that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Board of Revenue under section 166-B of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act is irregular as the order was passed without giving notice to the auction-purchaser. In that view, the Government set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and remitted the case for fresh disposal after giving notice to the auction-purchaser.

(2.) The Excise Contractor thereupon filed Writ Petition No. 232 of 1958 in the High Court andit was heard by Umamaheswaram, J., on 14th August, 1958. The learned Judge held that the decision of the Government was based upon substantial', justice and that no interference was called for. He further pointed out that if the mandatory provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act were not complied with in bringing the properties of the defaulter to sale, the sale would certainly be set aside and that it is clear law that if no proclamation had been issued in respect of the sale, the sale would be void. Thereafter, the Board of Revenue reconsidered the matter and passed the order dated 16th October, 1958, which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 91 of 1959. The Board of Revenue held that no case was made out for setting aside the sale within the meaning of section 138 of the Land Revenue Act. It held that in the absence of proof of injury suffered by the petitioner by reason of any irregularity in the conduct of the sale, the Collector was right in declining to set aside the sale.

(3.) The Writ Petition, as stated above, was heard by our learned brother Seshachelapati, J., who allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order dated 16th October, 1958, passed by the Board of Revenue. The present appeal is filed, by the auction-purchaser against that order. Section 130 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act is as follows :-