RAMSARAN GANESH PRASAD Vs. MEWALAL JORAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of the ease are that the lands belonging to the respondent Mewalal were auctioned for realising the arrears of excise dues on 18-12-61 by Tahsildar, Mandla. THE respondent-defaulter did not make any application under rules 40, 41 and 42 of Schedule I to the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter called the Code) to the revenue officer who had conducted the sale but made an application on 16-1-62 to the Collector under rule 44 of Schedule I requesting that the sale be set aside on grounds of certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the revenue officer conducting the sale. On 12-2-62 he made another application to th.8 Collector stating that he had deposited all the arrears due on him and that he was prepared to pay to the auction-purchaser the sum equal to 5 per cent of the purchase money. THE Collector by his order dated 31-1-68 rejected the prayer of the respondent. THE grounds on which the Collector rejected the application were mainly as follows: - (i) THE respondent had not made application under rule 41 within 30 days from the date of sale. (ii) THE irregularities were not such as might have caused him substantial injuries. (iii) THE auction-purchaser will be put to unnecessary loss and trouble and it was with considerable difficulty that satisfactory auction bid could be procured. On an appeal by the respondent before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur the learned Additional Commissioner quashed the order of the Collector, Mandla confirming the sale on the ground that there were serious irregularities and that even though application under rules 40 and 41 was not made within the prescribed time before the revenue officer the Collector was competent to set aside the sale under rule 44 of Schedule I. THE aution-purchaser Shri Ramsaran has preferred a second appeal before the Board against the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 14th November 1963. This appeal was taken up for motion hearing before admission.

(2.) SHRI Romsaran, auction-purchaser, who is himself a pleader appeared on 24-9-64 and argued this case. In his appeal memo he has submitted detailed grounds for allowing his appeal against the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner. For the decision of the points involved in this case it is not necessary to discuss all the points of objections raised by the appellant. The only point for determination in this case is whether a Collector could set aside the sale if an application is made to him under rule 44 of Schedule I to the Code even though no application was made to the revenue officer conducting the sale under rules 40 and 41 if so, what should be the reasons to impel the Collector to set aside the sale. It would facilitate answer to the above question if rules 40, 41 and 44 are reproduced. They run as follows :-

(3.) IN view of above, I do not find much substance in this appeal and the appeal is rejected summarily. The orders of the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur are upheld. The sale will be deemed to be set aside only when the requirements of Rule 40, Schedule I are fulfilled. Appeal dismissed,