9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and owners but the Patwari of the village had obtained his thumb impressions on certain documents. According to him the Patwari had collected the land revenue from the land owners but had failed to deposit the same in the Government Treasury. By 3 962-63 the arrears of land revenue had risen to Rs. 40,000/- or thereabouts. Sardara Singh was prosecuted under Section 409 IPC in respect of the said arrears on the premise that he had collected the said amount from the land owners but had failed to deposit the same in the State Treasury. He, however, came to be acquitted on 22nd February, 1965. Prior to that, in 1964, he had made representations to the authorities for settling the accounts and had asked the defaulters to show him the receipts of payments, if any, made by them. No action was taken on his representations but instead his land was attached and put to auction-sale by the revenue authorities on 18th January, 1965 for recovering Rs. 11,718/- as arrears of land revenue. The auction- purchasers paid 25% of the price offered on the very same day; The remaining 75% which was required to be paid within 15 days was however deposited on 2nd March, 1965 instead of 2nd February, 1965. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er in respect of the amount shown as arrears of land revenue and the sale was fraudulent and illegal. Consequently, it came to the conclusion that issuance of the sale certificate did not confer any title on the auction-purchasers and as the sale was void the suit was maintainable and the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the same. On these findings the appeal was accepted and the suit was decreed. The auction- purchasers feeling aggrieved by the decision of the First Appellate Court approached the High Court in second appeal. The learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the decision in S. Swaroop Singh v. The Collector of Hissar and Ors. 1970 P.L.J. 313 required re-consideration. He, therefore, referred the entire case to a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench examined three points which may be formulated as under: (1) Whether 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? If yes, can the outstanding amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion-purchasers as required by Section 85 of the Act. That section provides that when the highest bid at the auction has been ascertained the person who made that bid shall, on the requisition of the officer conducting the sale, pay to that officer a deposit of 25% of the amount of his bid and on payment thereof he shall be declared to be the purchaser. Under Section 86, if the highest bidder fails to pay the deposit as required by Section 85, the person conducting the sale is required to put the property forthwith to sale once again. Section 88 posits that after the highest bidder is declared the purchaser on payment of 25% of the amount of his bid, he shall pay the full amount of the purchase money, meaning thereby the balance, before the close of 15th day from the date on which he was declared the purchaser. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume that in ordinary course on payment of the deposit he must have been declared a purchaser. In the present case after 25% of the bid amount was deposited on 18th February, 1965 and the declaration was made, the purchasers had to pay the balance money before the close of 15th day i.e. by 2nd February, 1965 but instead adm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The scheme of the rules quoted above may be shortly stated. A decree-holder cannot purchase property at the Court- auction in execution of his own decree without the express permission of the Court and that when he docs so with such permission, he is entitled to a set-off, but if he docs so without such permission, then the Court has a discretion to set aside the sale upon the application by the judgment-debtor, or any other person whose interests are affected by the sale (Rule 72). As a matter of pure construction this provision is obviously directory and not mandatory - See: Rai Radha Krishna and Ors. v. Bisheshar Sahai and Ors. 40 l.A. 312. The moment a person is declared to be the purchaser, he is bound to deposit 25 percent of the purchase-money unless he happens to be the decree holder, in which case the Court may not require him to do so (Rule 84). The provision regarding the deposit of .25 per cent, by the purchaser other than the decree-holder is mandatory as the language of the rule suggests. The full amount of the purchase- money must be paid within fifteen days from the date of the sale but the decree-holder is entitled to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he pendency of his appeal he was dispossessed and, therefore, h was required to amend the plaint and claim possession also. The suit was, therefore, clearly de hors the provisions of the Act and hence ordinarily the civil court was entitled to hear and decide the same. But it was contended on behalf of the auction-purchasers that the jurisdiction of the civil court was ousted by the specific provisions contained in Clauses XIV and XV of Sub-section (2) of Section 158 of the Act. In order to appreciate this contention we may refer to the said provision: 158 (2): A Civil Court shall not exercise jurisdiction over any of the following matters, namely:- xxx xxx xxx xxx (xiv) any claim connected with, or arising out of, the collection by the Government, or the enforcement by the Government of any process for the recovery of land-revenue, or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue; (xv) any claim to set aside, on any ground other than fraud, a sale for the recovery of an arrear of land-revenue or any sum recoverable as an arrear of land-revenue. In the present case the suit was instituted for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from taking possession of the la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
