9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er: "4. .........In order to conduct an auction sale, sale notice in form 16 was issued on September 17, 1996 by fixing the sale on October 27, 1996. Petitioner moved the Government and obtained an interim order on condition and accordingly the sale was adjourned. Petitioner did not comply with the conditions. Hence the property was again re-notified for sale on January 25, 1997. Since there were no bidders, the sale did not materialise and was adjourned. Thus there was a proper and sufficient notice for sale for January 25, 1997 and the same was adjourned because there were no bidders. For subsequent sales, notices were served on the petitioner on December 19, 1996, August 1, 1997, November 3, 1997 and January 23, 1998. For all these sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ten). Section 50(2)(ii) further states that if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the arrears, such officer may bid on behalf of the Government for an amount higher than such bid by rupee one and in either case, the Government shall acquire the property subject to the provisions of this Act. 4.. From the provisions of section 50, it is manifest that the postponed date for sale under section 50(2) should be consecutively fixed not later than 60 days. So the period between the dates of sale fixed under section 50(1) and under section 50(2) should not exceed 60 days. It will be seen from the impugned judgment that the sale on the postponed date was made on February 23, 1998. The question is whether earlier date of sale, as envisaged b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to acquire the property of the appellant. The property of the appellant sold on February 23, 1998 could be said to have been acquired by the Government under section 50(2) only if there were first sale within the meaning of section 50(1) within the period of 60 days before February 23, 1998. As no sale was held within 60 days prior to February 23, 1998, sale dated February 23, 1998 would not divest the appellant of her rights in the property. 6.. The learned Judge, in our opinion, erroneously proceeded to hold that sale dated February 23, 1998 is valid and conforming to the provisions of section 50, inasmuch as there was a valid notice for sale dated January 25, 1997. There may be a valid notice for sale dated January 25, 1997. But the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
