KALALA LAXMA REDDY Vs. SYED BURHAMUDDIN HUSSAIN DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the instance of respondents 2 and 3 in W.P.No.4740 of 1973 is directed against the judgment of our learned brother Obul Reddi J. as he then was. The question that falls for consideration is whether the sale of property held by a public auction under the provisions of the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, ceases to be a sale on the failure of the auction purchaser depositing the amounts as required under Clauses (3) and (4) of Section 36 of the said Act.

(2.) The necessary facts that gave rise to this question may briefly be stated. The writ petitioner, an agriculturists, obtained a loan from the Government for purchasing a tractor and did not repay the loan in spite of demands by the Revenue Authorities. As a result, proceedings under section 36 of the Madras. Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were launched and the lands belonging to the writ petitioner were notified for sale. The sale was held by a public auction on 4-3-1964 and the appellants herein were the highest bidders in respect of some of the Survey Nos. Clause (3) of Sec. 36 of the Act requires that 15% of the price of the land should be deposited by the purchaser at the time of the purchase and the remainder of the purchase money should be paid within 30 days, failing which the 15% of money deposited earlier would be liable for forfeiture. The 1st appellant herein deposited the amount representing 15% of the price on 11-3-1964 and the 2nd appellant deposited the same on 5-3-1964. But they failed to pay the balance within 30 days as enjoined under Sec. 36 of the Act. Thereupon the Revenue Divisional Officer, in exercise of his powers, directed forfeiture of the deposits made by the appellants and also ordered re-sale. Aggrieved by the said order the appellants went in appeal to the Collector and the same was dismissed. Later they filed a revision before the Government under section 57-A of the Act. The Government after considering the petition allowed the revision without notice to the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and set aside the order relating to forfeiture and directed the appellants to pay the balance of the bid amount together with interest thereon according to the rules within 30 days from the date of communication of the order, and the concerned Collector was directed to take necessary action. It may be mentioned here that the appellants deposited the balance amount accordingly. The 1st respondent preferred W.P. No: 1229 of 1966 against this order of the Government and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge and the matter was carried in writ appeal and a Division Bench of this court allowed the appeal on the ground that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent and directed the Government to dispose of the same after hearing both parties.

(3.) The Government complied with the same and after hearing both sides passed G.O. Ms. No. 655. Revenue, dated 26-7-1973 whereby it confirmed the sale in favour of the appellants herein affirming its own earlier order. As against the said order the present writ petition has been filed. Our learned brother Obul Reddi, J., as he then was, following a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manilal Mohanlal v. Syed Ahmed (1) AIR 1954 S.C. 349) and another judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Writ Appeal No. 74 of 1970 (dt. 30-8-1971), allowed the writ petition holding that the sale in question in favour of the appellants is a nullity since they failed to make initial deposit of 15% of the price at the time of purchase.