SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM versus MOTI AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 596 · Decided: 13-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM 
v. 
MOTi AND ANR. 
AUGUST 13, 1996 
B 
[M.M. PUNCCHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 : Sections 202 and 203. 
Auction sal,,......Bid amount--25% of bid amount deposited 011 the 
C spot-Balance amount not deposited within two months as required under 
the Cod,,......Amozmt deposited beyond the presc1ibed limit of two molllhs from 
the date of auction-Auction sale set asid,,......Held, order setting aside auction 
sale was valid. 
D 
E 
The appellant, owner of a saw-mill, committed default in the pay-
ment of employer's share of provident fund. For recovery of the said 
provident fund his properties were put to auction sale on 27.6.1977. The 
respondent, a successful bidder in the auction sale, deposited 25% of the 
bid amount on the spot. The balance 3/4th amount was deposited on 
26.8.1977 i.e. 
beyond two months from the date of auction sale. The 
appellant's objection for setting aside the sale on the ground that the 
amount was not deposited within two months from the date of auction as 
required by section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was 
rejected by Sub-Divisional. Officer. The Additional Commissioner accepted 
the appellant's objection. He rejected the plea of respondent that an 
F 
application was filed before the Auctioning Authority for deposit of the 
balance amount on 16.8.1977 i.e. within two months from the date of 
auction. He gave a finding that respondent's plea was not substantiated 
on record. Consequently the Additional Commissioner set aside the sale. 
On revision the Revenue Minister upset the finding given by Additional 
Commissioner without giving reasons and accordingly upheld the auction 
G sale. A writ petition filed by the appellant before Bombay High Court was 
dismissed in limine. The appellant preferred an appeal before this Court 
and pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court deposited a sum 
of Rs. 50,000 in this Court. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
596 
DEVTIDEVJDAUlATRAMv. MOTI[VENKATASWAMl,J.] 
597 
HELD : 1.1. A reading of sections 202 and 203 of Maharashtra Land A 
Revenne Code, 1966 clearly shows that the purchaser is expected to deposit 
the balance of auction money within two months from the date of sale or 
within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale whichever is earlier. 
Admittedly, the first respondent has not deposited the amount as required 
under section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. [599-H; 600-A] 
1.2. The Additional Commissioner gave a clear finding that the 
respondent has failed to pay 3/4th balance amount before the expiry of two 
months which period being earlier and consequently, the sale was set aside. 
B 
The Revisional Order passed by the Revenue Minister never attempted to 
upset the finding by giving reasons. On the other hand, it proceeded on C 
certain assumptions to upset the well-considered findings given by the 
Additional Commissioner. The findings of the Additional Commissioner 
are accepted. The case put forward by the 1st respondent blaming the 
revenue authorities for delayed deposit of 3/4th of the auction amount was 
an after thought and was not established with the help of the records. 
[601-D; G-HJ D 
1.3. To meet the ends of justice, it is directed that the de11osits made 
by the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court with interest accrued 
thereon shall be paid to the first respondent. [602-C] 
Ambati Raghava!u v. Mova Venkamma and Ors., AIR (1962) A.P. 334, E 
held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1583 of 
1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.84 of the Bombay High F 
Court in W.P. No. 3141 of 1979. 
Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant 
R. Venkataramani and D.M. Nargalkar, for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATASWAMI, J. One Daulat Ram since dead whose wife is the 
appellant before us was the owner of M/s Durga Prasad Saw Mills. He had 
defaulted in the Payment of employer's share of Provident Fund to a tune 
G 
of Rs. 24,530. After following the procedure, the properties belonging to H 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
the said Daulat Ram bearing Survey Nos. 183/4 and 228 situated in two 
different villages and measuring to an extent of 3.78 acres were brought to 
revenue sale for recovery of the said Provident Fund amount. The first 
respondent was the successful bidder in the revenue auction for a sum of 
Rs

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.