LexK. KUMARA GUPTA versus SRI MARKENDAYA AND SRI OMKARESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE & ORS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 8 S.C.R. [2022] 8 S.C.R. 968 968 K. KUMARA GUPTA v. SRI MARKENDAYA AND SRI OMKARESWARA SWAMY TEMPLE & ORS. (Civil appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2022) FEBRUARY 18, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.] Auction: Auction conducted on 26.06.1998 by the Executive Officer of the Temple Trust following due procedure under the provisions of the Endowments Act 1987 – Appellant was the highest bidder – After confirming the sale in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner, the appellant deposited the balance amount – Thereafter, sale deed was held confirmed and executed in the year 1998 – On challenge before High Court, re-auction of the property was ordered after a period of more than 23 years solely on the basis of the offer made by one JK in the year 1998 and the offer made by one LKR that they are ready to offer/pay a higher price than fetched in the public auction – On appeal, held: Neither did JK nor LKR had participated in the auction proceedings and made any offer – Both of them ought not have been permitted to raise any objection subsequently on the valuation when they had not participated in the public auction and made any offer – After the public auction is held and the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently – Further, unless and until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction and/or vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of a highest bidder – If there was any error in the decision-making process adopted by the authority, the remedy available was to question the sale deed in an appropriate proceeding available under the law and not by filing a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India – Moreover, respondents are not in a position to point out any material on which it can be said that what was offered by the appellant in the year 1998 was not a fair value – Hence, order of the High Court set aside – Endowments Act 1987 – Constitution of India – Art.226. A B C D E F G H 969 Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Once the appellant was found to be the highest bidder in a public auction in which 45 persons had participated and thereafter when the sale was confirmed in his favour and even the sale deed was executed, unless and until it was found that there was any material irregularity and/or illegality in holding the public auction and/or auction/sale was vitiated by any fraud or collusion, it is not open to set aside the auction or sale in favour of a highest bidder on the basis of some representations made by third parties, who did not even participate in the auction proceedings and did not make any offer. [Para 8.1][982-C-D] 2. The sale was confirmed in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner, Endowments Department after obtaining the report of the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court ought not to have ordered re-auction of the land in question after a period of 23 years of confirmation of the sale and execution of the sale deed in favour of the auction purchaser by observing that the value of the property might have been much more, otherwise, the object and purpose of holding the public auction and the sanctity of the public auction will be frustrated. Unless there is concrete material and it is established that there was any fraud and/or collusion or the land in question was sold at a throw away price, the sale pursuant to the public auction cannot be set aside at the instance of strangers to the auction proceeding. The sale pursuant to the public auction can be set aside in an eventuality where it is found on the basis of material on record that the property had been sold away at a throw away price and/or on a wholly inadequate consideration because of the fraud and/or collusion and/or after any material irregularity and/or illegality is found in conducing/holding the public auction. After the public auction is held and the highest bid is received and the property is sold in a public auction in favour of a highest bidder, such a sale cannot be set aside on the basis of some offer made by third parties subsequently and that too when they did not participate in the auction proceedings and made any offer and/or the offer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.