SWARAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR, AMBALA CITY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.15528 of 2009) filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 31.10.2008 vide which his house was auctioned in recovery of certain amount as arrears of land revenue; and the order dated 31.7.2009, whereby the sale certificate pertaining to the said house was executed in favour of the Auction Purchaser (respondent No.3 herein), has been dismissed.

(2.) In the present case, undisputedly the appellant stood surety for several accused in different cases under the NDPS Act. All those accused were neither relative nor were co-villagers of the appellant. All the accused, for whom the appellant stood surety, jumped bails and their bail bonds were forfeited, and the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellant and recovery warrants were issued accordingly. When the appellant failed to deposit the amount on account of forfeiture of the surety bonds, which was to the tune of Rs.1,35,000/-, the said amount was ordered to be recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. The Court sent various notices to the appellant to deposit the said amount but he did not respond to the Court notices. When the appellant failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, the Collector after obtaining the necessary permission from the Commissioner, proceeded for sale of the house of the appellant to recover the said amount. The appellant was also served a defaulter notice by fixing the date of auction as 31.10.2008. In spite of having the knowledge, the appellant did not take any steps to deposit the due amount either before or on the date of auction. Ultimately, on 31.10.2008 the house in question was auctioned. In that auction, respondent No.3 gave the highest bid which was accepted. It may be mentioned here that respondent No.3 is none else than the mother-in-law of the appellant. It is the stand of respondent no.3 that she had participated in the auction and purchased the house in question with an object that her daughter and her two children (wife and children of the appellant) may not be thrown out of the house, because according to her the appellant had deliberately not deposited the amount in spite of the fact that he was having sufficient money with him. The auction was confirmed by the Commissioner on 31.7.2009. Prior to that, the petitioner did not file any objections though he was having sufficient opportunity to file the same by pointing out any irregularity in the conduct of the auction.

(3.) After issuance of the sale certificate in favour of the mother-inlaw of the appellant (respondent No.3 herein), the appellant had filed the writ petition challenging the auction/sale as well as the order dated 31.7.2009, whereby the sale certificate pertaining to the said house was issued in favour of respondent No.3.