SURESH CHANDRA versus U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 985 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
985
SURESH CHANDRA
v.
U.P. AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11760 of 2018)
DECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
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 2nd 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
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 985
985
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
986                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11760
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2018 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Misc. Bench No. 6198
of 2012.
Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Sushil Kumar Dubey, Ms. Noor
Rampal, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Appellant.
S. S. Kulshrestha, Sr. Adv., Vishwajit Singh, Ms. Srishti Khanna,
Ajeet Pandey, Danish Zubar Khan, Abhay Kumar, Manish Khandelwal,
Saurabh Misra, Himanshu Pal Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
987
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
29.01.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in Writ Petition No. 6198(M/B) of 2012  whereby the Division
Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which
lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in
brief hereinbelow.
4. While issuing notice of this special leave to appeal on 06.03.2018,
this Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.