Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1990 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1990 (8) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURTWhether a Lambardar who fails to collect the land revenue and deposit the same in the State Treasury, can be said to be a 'defaulter' within the meaning of Section 3(8) of the Act? Whether the sale in favour of the purchasers, i.e. the appellants before us, was null and void as they had failed to pay the balance (75%) of the purchase-price within the time allowed by Section 88 of the Act? Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit having regard to Section 158 of the Act? Held that:- Once it is held that the sale was rendered null and void on the failure of the auction-purchasers to comply with the requirements of Section 88 of the Act, it was the imperative duty of the authorities to put the property to re-sale for the law did not confer any discretion in the concerned authorities to extend the time for the payment of the balance amount. Once the mandatory requirement of Section 88 of the Act was not complied with, the only course open to the concerned authorities was to put the property to re- sale. It, therefore, by Section 88 of the Act. Therefore, the action of the concerned authority in accepting the balance money on 2nd March, 1965 long after the period prescribed by Section 88 of the Act had expired was an act without jurisdiction and of no avail. So also the confirmation of sale on 21st March, 1966 was without jurisdiction and must be ignored. If that is the true position in law, there can be so doubt that there was no sale in the eye of the law in favour of the appellants herein and, therefore, the threatened action of the appellants to dispossess the landowner was clearly de hors the Act and could validity be challenged in a civil court. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the view which found favour with the High Court. Appeal dismissed.
|