NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR. LRS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 25-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
NARAYAN YADAV (D) THR. LRS.
v.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9173 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914:
s. 28 – Auction sale of land in question – For recovery of
loan – Application u/s. 28 for cancelling the auction sale claiming
to be bona fide purchaser even before auction – Amount as required
to be deposited was not deposited within 30 days – Certificate Officer
extended time to deposit the amount – Pursuant to objector depositing
the amount, auction sale cancelled – Whether auction sale liable to
be cancelled on failure to make deposit within 30 days – Held: Time
limit was mandatory – Certificate Officer had no jurisdiction to
extend that time – Hence, could not have cancelled auction sale.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1. From a reading of Section 28 of the Bihar and
Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914, it is clear that the
certificate-debtor, or any person whose interests are affected by
the sale, may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the
sale, can make an application to the Certificate Officer to set
aside the sale by depositing the amount specified in the
proclamation of sale, along with interest @ six and a quarter per
centum per annum, and with penalty, a sum equal to ten percent
of the purchase money. If the application filed under Section 28
of the Act is to be treated as valid it must be along with the deposit,
as contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Act. [Para 8][1004-
D-F]
2. In the present case, the deposit of purchase money along
with penalty was not deposited within a period of thirty days from
the date of sale. [Para 8][1004-F]
3. If any person applies for setting aside the sale, one has
to make an application to set-aside the sale, and such application
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 999
999
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
is to necessarily be supported by deposit of money. For making
an application, when there is a stipulated time of thirty days from
the date of sale, it means that it is to be done at sometime during
the course of stated time immediately preceding the expiry of
thirty days. Further, the word “deposit” used in the Section, is to
be understood and mean that deposit is to be made either, before
making an application, or simultaneously with the application
within the prescribed time of thirty days. When there is a
prescribed time of thirty days from the date of sale. [Para 8][1004-
H; 1005-A-B]
4. In absence of any power on the certifying officer to extend
the time, he has no jurisdiction at all to extend the time of deposit,
beyond the period of thirty days from date of sale. In absence of
any power conferred on the authority under Section 28 of the
Act, and considering the consequence of not depositing the money
within the time of thirty days, the period of thirty days as
mentioned in the Section 28 is to be considered as mandatory.
[Para 8][1005-B-C]
5. The provision under Section 28 is intended to safeguard
the interests of persons who are affected by the sale, to approach
the competent authority within the prescribed time by depositing
the purchase amount along with ten percent thereof as penalty
which is payable to auction purchaser for retaining the land. If
deposits are allowed to be made even after thirty days, same will
run contrary to Section 28 itself and frustrate the object of the
provision. [Para 8][1005-D-E]
6. The respondent-writ petitioners, except stating that the
writ-petitioners are the bona fide purchasers by registered sale
deeds from the original owners even before the auction, and they
have also deposited the purchase money along with 10% towards
penalty, could not make any acceptable submission for entertaining
application which is not supported by deposit as required under
Section 28 of the Act. [Para 9][1005-G-H; 1006-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9173
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.03.2008 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 79 of 1994.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
Amit Kumar, Somesh Chandra Jha, Praveen Chandra, Ms. Pyoli,
Advs. for the Appellants.
Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Saksham Maheshwari, D.K. Thakur,
Devendra Jha, Abhishek Kumar, Shivraju HB, Rituparn Uniyal,
H. L. Chumber, Dr. V. P.Appan, Gopal Singh, Jaideep Khanna,
Srikaanth S., Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. This civil a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.