Land Acquisition – Compensation – Execution proceedings – Auction sale – Setting aside of Auction Sale – Civil Procedure Code,1908 – O. XX1 R. 17, 66, 54, 66, 89, 90(3) and s.151 – Respondent no. 1 (Respondent Trust) acquired the land and failed to give the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Tribunal – In the first round of execution proceedings, the property bearing khasra no. 271 and 272 of Respondent Trust was attached and sold to the appellant by way of auction for 22.65 lakhs – Respondent Trust filed application before the Court of the Senior Sub Judge to set aside the ex-parte attachment and auction of the Trust’s property – The executing Court dismissed the objections and uphold the sale – SLP filed before Supreme Court – The Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Executing Court for deciding the application u/O. XX1 R. 90 de novo – In the Second round of Execution Proceedings – Executing Court dismissed the objections, raised against the auction sale, on the ground of material irregularities and substantial injury caused to the Respondent Trust – First Appellate Court also confirmed the decision of Execution Court – High Court set aside the judgments of the executing Court and the First Appellate Court on the ground that there were glaring irregularities in the auction sale – The property auctioned consisted of Khasra nos. 271 and 272, whereas the list of property was only in reference to the land in khasra no 272 – Appellant in appeal before the Supreme Court – Held : No doubt originally Khasra No. 271 was not mentioned and only Khasra No.
272 was mentioned but that would have been relevant if there was a problem in identification of the property and the ownership of the property – And, there was no problem in such identification – The property is clearly described in site plan – Order XXI of the Code is exhaustive – It is clearly stated in O. XXI Rule 90(3) that no application to set aside a sale on grounds of irregularity or fraud under the Rule can be entertained on any ground which the applicant would have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up – The Explanation to the Rule further says that mere absence of or defect in attachment of the property sold should not by itself be a ground for setting aside the sale under this Rule – The Judgment Debtor/Respondent Trust failed to avail any of these opportunities at different stages – The dual test of material irregularity of fraud and substantial injury is not satisfied in the present case – Thus, auction sale is confirmed. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD :
1. The dragging of the proceedings for three decades have been a grave injustice to the Appellant, who have been deprived of the enjoyment of the property despite having paid the full auction price 30 years back. Merely because the Respondent No. 1 is an Improvement Trust does not give it a licence to take a citizen’s right for a ride. [ Para 29][759-B-C]
2. In the view of this Court, there is no irregularity or discrepancy in identification of the property when the site plan was filed with it. This Court has reproduced the site plan so as to make it explicitly clear how the bounded property was clearly described. No doubt originally Khasra No.271 was not mentioned and only Khasra No.272 was mentioned but that would have been relevant if there was a problem in identification of the property and the ownership of the property. This was not so. [Para 32][759G-H; 760-A]
3. The Court fails to understand how the dual test of material irregularity of fraud and substantial injury is satisfied in the present case. In fact, neither part of the dual test is satisfied. The Respondent Trust cannot be permitted to say that merely because the property was auctioned there is some substantial injury. No doubt there were some structures shown in the site plan itself, however, they were merely basic structures of a godown and a quarter. [Para 34][760-A]
4. The Executing Court and the First Appellant Court duly supported the reasoning based on various failures of the Judgment Debtor: (a) did not file objections at the time of presentation of execution petition; (b) did not file any objections at the time of order of attachment; (c) no objections filed when proclamation under Order XXI Rule 66 of the said Code was made; (d) no objections filed even at the time of public auction being actually conducted. [Para 35][760-H; 761-A]
5. It is clearly stated in the Order XXI Rule 90(3) of the said Code that no application to set aside a sale on grounds of irregularity or fraud under the Rule can be entertained on any ground which the applicant would have taken on or before the date on which the proclamation of sale was drawn up. The Explanation to the Rule further says that mere absence of or defect in attachment of the property sold should not by itself be a ground for setting aside the sale under this Rule. The Judgment Debtor/Respondent Trust failed to avail any of these opportunities at different stages. [Para 36][761-B-C]
6. The impugned judgement of the High Court dated 06.03.2018 is set aside and the view taken by the Executing Court and the Appellate Court is sustained. The Court grants costs to the Appellant against Respondent No. 1 quantified at Rs. 1 lakh. The Appeal is allowed. [Para 40][764-C-D]
Trust, Ludhiana v. Ujagar Singh and Others (2010) 6 SCC 786; Saheb Khan v. Mohd. Yousufuddin and
Others (2006) 4 SCC 476 ; Sadashiv Prasad Singh v. Harendar Singh (2015) 5 SCC 574 : [ 2014] 1 SCR 249; Sugandhi (Dead) by LRs. & Ors. v. P. Rajkumar (2020)
10 SCC 706 ; Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam v.
Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi & Anr. (2017) 6 SCC
770 : [2017] 3 SCR 826 - referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.