Auction:
Re-auction – Propriety of – First auction of plot by respondent-Parishad – Appellant though the highest bidder, was not given the land by the Parishad and decision taken to re-auction – Decision for re-auction challenged in writ petition by the appellant – Re-auction was allowed by High Court subject to outcome of the writ petition – In second auction respondent No.5 was allotted the land and sale-deed executed in his favour – Writ Petition of appellant was dismissed – Appeal to Supreme Court – Notice issued limited to the question of re-auction (third auction) of the land in question – Respondent-Parishad had no objection to the re-auction – Held: In order to do complete justice between the parties, and to balance the equities, fresh auction can be ordered – Parishad is directed to re-auction the land by giving it wide publicity and after fixing the reserve price on consulting the experts – Sale-deed executed in favour of respondent No.5 has become void.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In order to do complete justice between the parties in relation to subject matter of the proceedings in question and to balance the equities and further having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, the fresh auction of the land in question can be ordered. [Para 17][989-B-C]
2. The 2 nd re-auction proceedings conducted by the Parishad were made subject to final outcome of the writ petition by order dated 30.07.2012 passed by the High Court in the appellant’s writ petition and, therefore, even if Parishad had proceeded to finalize the sale of the land in question in favour of respondent No.5, it did not affect any of the rights of the appellant while prosecuting the writ petition. It was more so because respondent No.5 was also aware of the order dated 30.07.2012, he being part to the writ petition. [Para 18][989-C-E]
3. The Parishad did not give adequate publicity for sale of the land in question while conducting the two auctions keeping in view, the value and the potential of the land, the Parishad should have given adequate publicity in the leading national English, Hindi newspapers having circulation all over the country including any other prescribed mode of publication with a sole object to attract participation of more and more persons in the auction proceedings. [Paras 19 and 20][989-E-F]
4. The Parishad committed an error in fixing reserve price of the land at a very less amount. The Parishad should have seen that the land has a tremendous potential in commercial market as is clear from the fact that both the bidders had volunteered to pay much higher price as against their original bid amount. [Para 21][989-F-H]
5. Since this Court has directed re-auctioning of the land, the sale deed has now become void. Respondent No.5 is, therefore, entitled to claim refund of entire stamp duty amount paid by him on the sale deed for its execution/registration. The appellant and respondent No. 5 will be free to participate in the auction proceedings as a fresh bidder along with others. [Paras 27 and 28][990-E-F]
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.