http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SMT.DEVTIDEVI DAULATRAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTI AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/08/1996

BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) BENCH: VENKATASWAMI K. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)818

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Venkataswami, J.      One Daulat  Ram since  dead whose wife is the appellant before us  was the  owner of  M/s Durga Prasad Saw Mills. He had  defaulted   in  the  payment  of  employer’s  share  of Provident Fund  to a  tune of  Rs-2 .  After  following  the procedure, the  properties belonging  to the said Daulat Ram bearing Survey  Nos. 183/4 and 228 situated in two different villages and  measuring to  an extent  of  3.78  acres  were brought to  revenue sale  for recovery of the said Provident Fund amount.  The first respondent was the successful bidder in the  revenue auction  for a  sum of  Rs. 34,500/- held on 27.6.1977. As per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 he deposited a sum of Rs.8625/- representing 25 per cent of the bid  amount   on  the  spot.  As  per  section  202  of  the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the balance of the bid amount has to  be deposited  within two months from the date of the auction or  15 days from the confirmation of sale, whichever is earlier.  Factually the sale was confirmed on 21.11.1977. The first respondent deposited the 3/4th amount on 26.8.1977 which is  admittedly  beyond  2  months  from  the  date  of auction.  The  appellant,  widow  of  the  said  Daulat  Ram preferred an  objection to  the Revenue sale. Apart from the appellant, one  Banta Singh  claiming to  be the  legatee of Daulat Ram  under  a  will  also  filed  an  objection.  The objection of Banta Singh was ultimately thrown out and he is not before  us and,  therefore, we  need not  consider  that further. The objection preferred by the appellant though not accepted by  the Sub Divisional officer, Ramtek was accepted by Additional  Commissioner. Nagpur  Division by order dated 26.6.1979.  Against   that,  the   first  respondent  herein preferred  a  further  revision  to  the  Revenue  Minister, Government of  Maharashtra and that Revision was accepted by an order  dated 10.10.79.  Consequently the objection raised by the  appellant was  rejected and  the  auction  sale  was upheld. Aggrieved  by that  the appellant  preferred a civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Writ  Petition  before  the  Bombay  High  Court  which  was dismissed by  a one line order. Hence, the present appeal by special leave.      Dr. N.M.  Ghatate, learned senior counsel appearing for the  appellant  took  us  through  all  the  orders  of  the authorities below  and also  the relevant  provisions of the Maharashtra Land  Revenue Code,  in particular, sections 202 and 203  of the  Code and  contended that  the order  of the Additional Commissioner was firmly based on sections 202 and 203 and  the Revisional  order of  the Government  does  not contain  any   valid  reason  to  upset  the  order  of  the Additional Commissioner.  He also  invited our  attention to the interim  orders passed  by this  Court at  the  time  of admission of  the special  leave directing  the appellant to deposit a  sum of  Rs.50,000/- which  was later  invested in fixed deposit from time to time.      Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the first; respondent  submitted that  the order  passed by  the Revenue Minister  does not call for any interference and the first respondent  should not  suffer tor  any laches  on the part of  the revenue  authorities in delaying the receipt of the balance amount which the first respondent was willing to deposit within  time. According  to Mr.  Venkataramani,  the bona fide  of the  first respondent  to deposit  the balance amount within time can be verified from the application made by him to the Auctioning Authority, namely, Nai Tehsildar on 16.8.1977 which  is well  within two months from the date of auction. He submitted that the time fixed for deposit of the balance amount  cannot he rigidly viewed and in the facts of this case  that should  be treated as procedural irregularly not affecting the auction sale itself. In support of that he placed reliance  on a  judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh  High Court  in  Ambati  Raghavalu  vs.  Mova Venkamma and others AIR 1962 A.P. 334.      We have  considered the rival submissions. Sections 202 and 203  of  the  Maharashtra  Land  Revenue  Code  read  as follows:      "202. - The full amount of purchase      money  shall   be   paid   by   the      purchaser before  the expiration of      2 months from the date on which the      sale of the immovable property took      place or  before the  expiration of      15 days  from the date on which the      intimation of confirmation of’ sale      is  received   by   the   purchaser      whichever is earlier.           Provided that if the last date      on which  the purchase  money is to      be paid happens to be the Sunday or      other authorised  holiday, then the      payment shall  be made  before  the      sunset of  the first  day of office      after such date.’      "203.  --  In  default  of  payment      within the prescribed period of the      full amount  of purchase  money  of      the moveable  or immovable property      the   deposit    after    defraying      therefrom the  expenses of the sale      shall be  forfeited  to  the  State      Government and  the property  shall      be  resold   and   the   defaulting      purchaser shall  forfeit all claims      to the  property or  to any part of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    the  same   for  which  it  may  be      subsequently sold."      A reading  of the  above provisions  clearly shows that the purchaser  is expected to deposit the balance of auction money within  2 months  from the  date of  sale or within 15 days from  the date  of confirmation  of sale  which ever is earlier. Admittedly,  the first respondent has not deposited the amount  as required under section 202 of the Maharasthra Land Revenue  Code. The excuse given by the first respondent before the  authorities was  that he  filed  an  application before the  Auctioning Authority, namely, Naib Tehsildar for deposit of  the balance  amount OTI  16.8.1977 which is well within two  months from  the date  of auction  and the  said application was  endorsed by  the Naib Tehsildar to wait the further orders  of the Sub Divisional Officer. Ramtek,. that was the  reason, according  to the first respondent, for his inability  to   pay  the  balance  amount  within  the  time prescribed by  section  202  of  the  Code.  That  has  been cogently  and  elaborately  dealt  with  by  the  Additional Commissioner,   Land   Revenue   while   rejecting   similar contention. In fact, the Additional Commissioner has clearly doubted the  existence of  such application  on the  date on which it  was alleged to have been presented before the Naib Tehsildar. The  Additional Commissioner  further  stated  as follows :      In fact,  there was no need to make      any endorsement  on the application      stating that  the orders  would  be      sought from sub-Divisional Officer,      and  communicated  to  the  auction      purchaser. 1  also find  that there      is  nothing   on  record   to  show      whether this application was at all      submitted to sub-Divisional officer      and whether any orders thereon were      passed   by    the   Sub-Divisional      Officer. It  is  strange  that  the      auction-purchaser did  not approach      the sub-Divisional  Officer  before      whom    the     proceedings     for      confirmation    of     sale    were      pending... It  is not his case that      the authorities  refused to  accept      the  amount  when  he  offered  the      same. The  plea  of  the  appellant      that he  could not make the payment      before the  expiry of two months on      the directive  of the court is not.      therefore, valid  - firstly because      there was  no need to seek any such      directive and  secondly, it’ at all      the -appellant  wanted to  seek any      clarification, the proper forum for      him would have been to approach the      sub-Divisional Officer  to whom the      proceedings had  been submitted tor      confirmation of the auction."      In  para  9,  the  Additional  Commissioner  has  given reasons for  doubting the receipt of the alleged application dated 16.8. 1917. The Additional Commissioner states :      "This  objection   was  already  on      record when the appellant’s counsel      presented written  arguments before      the Sub-Divisional Officer. Perusal      of the  written argument shows that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    there  is   no  reference   to  the      application  dated   16.8.1977   in      which  the   appellant  had  sought      directives from  the Naib-Tehsildar      regarding payment  of 3/4th amount.      It  is   really  strange  that  the      appellant should  have kept  silent      on  this   vital  issue   when   he      presented his  case before the Sub-      Divisional Officer.  Had he  really      been  prevented   from  paying  the      balance  amount   on   account   of      directives  issued   by  the  Naib-      Tehsildar his normal reaction would      have been  to point out to the sub-      Divisional Office  that  the  could      not pay  the balance  of the amount      because there was an endorsement on      his  application   dated  16.8.1977      that   he    would   be   intimated      regarding payment of the balance on      receipt of  the  orders  from  Sub-      Divisional    Officer     regarding      payment of the balance amount."      On the  basis of the above clear finding the Additional Commissioner held  that  the  first  respondent  herein  has failed to  pay 3/4th  balance amount  before the expiry of 2 months which period being earlier and consequently, the sale was set aside.      This order  of Additional Commissioner was upset by the Revenue  Minister   without  really   meeting  the  findings rendered by  the Additional  Commissioner, but proceeding on the assumption  that the application of the first respondent dated 16.8.1977  was on  record and  he was  misled  by  the Revenue Authority  from depositing the balance amount within time. Therefore,  the Revisional  Order proceeded  that  the first respondent could not be treated as a defaulter.      We cannot  think we  can accept the finding rendered in the Revisional Order in the light of clear findings based on record given  by the Additional Commissioner. As pointed out earlier, the  Revisional Order  never attempted to upset the findings by  giving reasons  on the other hand, it proceeded on certain assumptions to upset the well-considered findings given by  the Additional  Commissioner. The  Division  Bench judgment of  the Andhra  Pradesh High court relied on by the learned counsel  for the first respondent will be of no help as use  accept on  facts, the  findings  of  the  Additional Commissioner. The  case put  forward by  the 1st  respondent blaming the revenue authorities for delayed deposit of 3/4th of the  auction amount  was  an  afterthought  and  was  not established with the help of the records.      We  have   already  noticed   that  the  appellant  has deposited a  sum of  as. 50,000/-pursuant  to the  orders of this Court on 15.4.1985 and that amount has been invested in fixed deposit  with periodical  renewal and  that amount  is available for  disbursement. It  is also  admitted that  the provident fund  amount due  has been  adjusted from the sale amount. In  these circumstances to meet the ends of justice. we order that the deposits made by the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court with interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the first respondent.      In the  result, the  appeal is  allowed and  the  first respondent is  permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with interest accrued thereon. No costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5