9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue from a firm known as Karamchand Pyarelal and its partners (hereinafter referred to as " the assessee "). The sale of the property by public auction was initially advertised to be held at 11.30 a.m. on February 19, 1987. Bidders were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000 by way of refundable deposit. The successful bidder had to pay 25% of the sale price on the spot and the balance within 15 days. Clause 5 of the rules and conditions of the sale ran thus : " The property is leasehold under the President of India. The unearned increase shall be borne by the purchaser in addition to the bid money." Other terms and conditions of the sale are not of much importance. An auction was conducted on the said date. A reserve price of Rs. 13, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No. 1. The successful bidders have since deposited not only 25% but the whole of the sale price as required by the terms and conditions of the auction but the confirmation of the sale has been held up by reason of the interim order in this writ petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the sale on February 19, 1987, had been rescinded as it did not fetch the reserve price. According to him, the auction of February 27, 1987, was bad for want of sufficient notice, the advertisement therefor having been published only on the date of the proposed auction. Attention is invited to rule 55 in the Second Schedule to the Act which provides that " No sale ... shall ...... take place until after the expiration of at least thirty days cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir statutory remedies seek relief from this court. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has produced before us the original records and we are satisfied that factually there was an adjournment of the sale on February 19, 1987. The endorsement in the auction papers only shows that the proceedings on that day were closed with the rejection of the bid of Rs. 13,01,000. But the order sheet of respondent No.1 shows that the sale had been adjourned to February 27, 1987, and this fact is also confirmed by the affidavits of respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It is also admitted by the petitioner that he did receive communication from respondent No. 2 to this effect. This communication is shown to have been sent by registered post on February 23, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (c) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered (cc) the reserve price, if any, below which the property may not be sold; and (d) any other thing which the Tax Recovery Officer considers it material for a purchaser to know, in order to judge the nature and value of the property." In tune with the above provision, the first respondent rightly considered it important to insert in the sale proclamation and advertisements, the position regarding the liability for paying the " unearned increase " realised by such sale to the Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.). The plot on which the property stands is leasehold property and under the relevant clauses of the lease deed, 50% of the increase in the market value of the land real ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us on conditions materially different from those of the first, the two must be considered as independent sales. The condition regarding unearned increase was vital one which had to find a place in the proclamation of sale and any variation therein could have been effected only after drawing up fresh sale proclamation in terms of rules 52 and 53. It cannot be treated as a " continuation " or " adjournment " of the first sale. Moreover, the auction sale on February 19, 1987, had been duly conducted and concluded. A sale may be adjourned when, for some reason, it does not take place at all or when, due to some difficulties, it is not completed on the date on which it is announced to take place. Where, however, it has taken place but does not f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale conditions. He never protested at the site of the auction to respondent No. 1, who was present, about the lack of proper notice. He deposited Rs. 10,000 and thus participated in the auction. The auction papers show he had bid only up to Rs. 12,90,000 on the earlier occasion and the maximum bid was considerably higher on both occasions. As against this, the respondents, who were almost in the same position as the petitioner, utilised the opportunity to improve their bids and also deposited the entire sale proceeds as required and are suffering loss because of the delay in the confirmation of the sale. But the sale in question is not like an auction sale in a litigation between parties inter se held under the Code of Civil Procedure whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
