LAWS(APH)-1974-7-15

MADALI NARASIMHA RAO Vs. NEERLA RANGAIAH

Decided On July 03, 1974
MADALI NARASIMHA RAO Appellant
V/S
NEERLA RANGAIAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of two revenue sales is in question in these two letters patent appeals. They arise out of second appeals Nos. 610 and 61 of 1970, which were dismissed by our learned brother Madhava Reddy J., affirming the decisions of the Courts below. It is the unanimous decision that the revenue sales are nullities. The learned Judge, however, granted leave and so, the aggrieved defendants have filed these letters patent appeals

(2.) The plaintiffs, who are the contesting respondents in the appeals were Excise Contractors. As they fell in arrears their agricultul at lands were sold in revenue auctions where the appellants purchased them. The two cases vary from each other in material facts.

(3.) In L.P.A. No. 219 of 1972, which arises out of O.S. No. 10/61 on the file of the District Munsiff's Court, Sircilla, the plaintiffs had been in arrears by 1955. So, a demand notice was issued to them for payment of Rs. 1497/-, which was the amount in arrears. The present suit properties were then attached on 16-5-1955 However, the plaintiffs and their partners paid the entire amount under demand by 30th Occober, 1956 before the properties were sold. Again fresh demand notices were issufd to them on 7-11-56, this time claiming Rs. 3, 147/- as arrears for a later period. Though the demand notices were given, properties were not attached; nor was there any hypothecation of the suit properties to the Government. In the name of the District Collector, the properties were sold in revenue auction on 13th June, 1959 without observing any formalities like artzchment, sale proclamation, previous permission of the Collector etc. Therefore the District Collector refused to confirm the sale, feeling that it was wholly repugnant to the law. Thereupon the Tahsildar decided on 25th of September, 19S9 to hold a fresh auction on 1-10-1959. On that day, the properties were again sold without observing any of the formalities that are required under the law. The appellants before us purchased the lands in that auction.