KATTUR LACHAMIYA Vs. STATE OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Kattur Lachamiya for the issue of an appropriate writ to quash the order, dated 15th July, 1956, passed by the Minister for Revenue, Government of Hyderabad, in File No. 134 of the Revision Branch of Revenu for the year 1953, whereby in exercise of the Government's revisional power, the Minister set aside a sale held under the provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act (VIII of 1317 Fasli). The contention of the petitioner is that the Revenue Minister had acted illeglly and in excess of his jurisdiction is setting aside the sale. The material facts are as follows :- One Ram Lingam, the second respondent in this writ petition, was an excise contractor. He owed to the Government a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards excise arrears for 1355-56 Fasli. Out of this amount, he paid only Rs. 903 and steps were taken by the Revenue authorities under the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act for the recovery of the balance of Rs. 1,097 by bringing to sale his land bearing survey number 32 in Adayagaon village. After observing the preliminary formalities prescribed by the Act, the land was sold by public auction on 2oth August, 1950.

(2.) The petitioner was the highest bidder for Rs. 2,000. The petitioner paid the entire purchasemoney in due course and the sale was confirmed by the District Collector, Adilabad, on 13th September, 1950. The petitioner was put in possession of the land on 31st December, 1950 and the sale certificate was granted to him on 15th January, 1951. While these proceedings were going on, it would appear that the second respondent had put in an application to the Collector for grant of time for the payment of arrears. On 27th June, 1950, the Collector directed the second respondent to furnish a security bond within a week. On 8th July, 1950, the second respondent produced a security bond together with a solvency certificate issued by the Tahsil, Boath. The District Office however insisted on a registered security bond at the request of the second respondent, the Collector granted him two weeks ' time with a direction that he should file a registered security bond within a fortnight. Whether the fornight's time was to run from 20th August, 1950 or 3oth August, 1950, is not quite clear from the records placed before me. The second respondent filed a registered security bond on 14th September, 1950. But in the meantime, as stated supra, the sale of the property had been held and the Collector had confirmed the same on 1310 September, 1950, and on 9th October, 1950, the District Office communicated the fact of confirmation to the concerned Tahsildar. The records show that the confirmation of the sale had been made by the Collector on the score that the time given to the second respondent for filing a registered security bond had expired and no further time could be granted. It is obvious that there had been some confussion in the District Office and lack of co-ordination between the District Office and the Tahsil. But the fact remains that the sale in favour of the petitioner had been confirmed on 13th September, 1950.

(3.) Against this confirmation, the second respondent preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue and the Board ordered that if the sale had not been completed and possession not given to the purchaser, the payment of arrears by the defaulter might be accepted and the sale cancelled. This order was communicated to the Tahsil on 20th January, 1951 ; but the Tahsil had given possession of the land to the petitioner even on 31st December, 1950 and hence the Board's directions could not be given effect to.