ROSHAN ALI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question in this appeal relates to the validity of a sale conducted on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for the realisation of arrears of dues payable in respect of an abkari contract. The 3rd defendant herein became the highest bidder in respect of certain Sendhi shops in two villages in the Nalgonda District for fasli 1357. The father of the Plaintiffs, Ali Saheb, held out a guarantee for the due fulfilment of the contract of the 3rd defendant. To secure the obligations under the guarantee, he effected a charge on several items of property owned by him.

(2.) It was ultimately found necessary to enforce the security bond for the realisation of the arrears. By the date of the enforcement of the charge, the guarantor, Ali Saheb, died; and certain proceedings were taken which ultimately resulted in the sale of Ac. 10-00 of land out of Survey No. 392 on 22nd June, 1964. The 2nd defendant became the purchaser at the revenue sale. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Ali Saheb, question the validity of the sale on two grounds. It is alleged that the property was sold after the death of the guarantor without notice of attachment or sale, to the plaintiffs, and that the requisite notices were taken out, if at all, in the name of the dead person. The second ground on which the sale is impugned is that the prescribed permission under section 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was not obtained, and, therefore, the sale is void.

(3.) The ist defendant is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Nalgonda. It is pleaded by the 1st defendant that a notice of demand was issued to the guarantor on 25th May, 1957, but as he died prior to that date, the notice was served on the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a petition on 4th June, 1957, asking for time for the payment of the dues. The lands were attached much later, on 30th October, 1957 and the attachment was effected in the presence of the plaintiffs. The further proceedings were all taken in conformity with the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act and it is denied that the sale was illegal or irregular. The plea under section 47 is also said to be of no avail.