CHATRA Vs. BEHARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal Division, dated 23-10-1964 in Appeal No. 236/63-64 under which he had allowed the appeal of the non-applicant No. 1 and set aside the order of the Additional Collector confirming the sale of the immovable property in question in favour of the applicant for the recovery of some amount that was due from the non-applicant No. 1.

(2.) THE Additional Commissioner held that the confirmation of the sale was a total nullity as the auction-purchaser has not deposited 1 /4th of the purchase money immediately after the sale nor the balance of the purchase money within 15 days after the sale. THE learned counsel for the applicant questioned the correctness of the Additional Commissioner's above finding of fact and also the legality of the order as it was passed without joining the applicant (who was the auction-purchaser and as such an essential party) as a party to the appeal. No satisfactory reply was given by the learned counsel on the other side as to these objections and on going through the records of the case I find that there is really no answer to the points raised by the learned counsel for the applicant. THE auction-purchaser is certainly a necessary party to any appeal, which if successful, would result in the setting aside of the sale. THE appeal before the Additional Commissioner, therefore, suffered from the grave defect that it was not properly constituted. THE Additional Commissioner's finding of fact also is not supported by the facts on record. It seems that the highest bid of the applicant was not accepted by the officer conducting the sale on the date on which the bid was made. Apparently the officer was not satisfied with highest bid and decided to hold auction again and invite fresh bids. It is only when no higher bids were forthcoming on the subsequent dates that the Tahsildar decided to accept the highest bid of the applicant and declared him to be the purchaser. Since the applicant was not before the Tahsildar on that date, he was noticed to deposit the purchase money according to the rules. From the records it is clear that the applicant had made the deposits in accordance with the rules after he had got the notice. THE person who makes the highest bid does not automatically incur the liability to deposit 25% of the purchase money immediately and the full amount within 15 days from the date of the sale. According to rule 37 of Rules in Schedule I, the liability arises only after highest bidder has been declared to be the purchaser by the officer or other person conducting the sale. THE Additional Commissioner's finding of fact' is thus not borne out by the facts on record and cannot be accepted. It may be that the Additional Commissioner was somewhat misled by the contradictory statements of the Tahsil officials about the deposits made by the applicant. It seems that the clerk in the first instance had reported that the deposit was made, whereupon the Tahsildar had ordered resale of the property, but later on the clerk had confessed that his report was wrong and the deposit had in fact not been made, whereupon the Tahsildar had modified his order for resale of the property. It may be that the relevant papers on record were not seen by the Additional Commissioner.

(3.) IN view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside. The order of the Additional Collector confirming the sale shall stand. Appeal allowed.