GANESH RAM Vs. COLLECTOR PALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Ganeshram, was the highest bidder of a public auction conducted by the Land Revenue Inspector in connection with the demand raised against Kapoor Chand, who was the owner of the shop in dispute, as the appellant had given the highest bid for the sum of Rs. 20101/ -. Consequently the sale was knocked down in favour of Ganesh Ram appellant by the Land Revenue Inspector on December 26, 1976. One of the objections taken on behalf of the owner of the shop Kapoor Chand to the said auction sale was that the Land Revenue Inspector had no jurisdiction to conduct the sale because under the provisions of Section 239 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the sale could have been made either by the Collector in person or by the Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in that behalf. THE Board of Revenue held that the sale was a nullity. THE learned Single Judge agreed with the view taken by the Board of Revenue and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) SECTION 239 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, was as under- "239. Sale when and by whom to be made (1) Every sale under this Chapter shall be made either by the Collector in person or by an Assistant Collector specially appointed by him in this behalf. (2) No such sale shall take place on a Sunday or other authorised holiday or until after the expiration of at least thirty days from the date on which the proclamation thereof was issued. (3) The Collector, may from time to time, postpone the sale. " Subsequently, by an amendment made in sub-section (1) of SECTION 239, by the Amending Act No. VI of 1981, published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated April 22, 1981, Tehsildar, specially appointed by the Collector in this behalf, was also authorised to make the sale under Chapter X of the Act.

(3.) IN view of the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 239 of the Land Revenue Act, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The sale in question was rightly held to be a nullity by the Board of Revenue, as it was conducted by a person who was not competent to do so and such a sale had to be set aside.