AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Bopanna, J—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the auction notice dated 14.05.2012 impugned at Annexure-C and also the notice dated 01.06.2012 at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner in that regard is seeking that a mandamus be issued to direct respondents No. 1 and 2 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 18.06.2012 and 09.01.2013.
The petitioner is a co-operative society which had established its Sugar factory. Due to difficult circumstance in performing its activity, the petitioner had suffered loss. Among other amounts which were outstanding, the terminal benefits of two of its employees viz, Sri N. Hebbar and Smt. Ophelia Fernandes which was quantified roughly at Rs. 7,85,000/- in the year 2005 was due. Towards the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue and to be paid to the said persons, an extent measuring 25 cents of the property bearing Sy. No. 31/1A/1P391 of Baikady village was brought to sale. Initially though the said extent had been carved out but no proceedings had been initiated by the respondents No. 1 to 4 to recover the amount, the said two employees were before this Court in W.P. No. 25078/2005. This Court by the order dated 24.08.2010 had allowed the petition and directed respondent No. 3 therein to take necessary steps to enforce the recovery certificates issued in favour of the petitioners. It is pursuant to the said order the subsequent action for sale of the property has been taken.
The contention of the petitioner while assailing such action for sale of the property is that respondents No. 1 to 4 had not applied their mind to the actual extent of the property that was required which would have been commensurate to the amount which was due and payable to the said two employees. It is further contended that even in respect of the extent of 25 cents that has been brought to sale, the reserve price which had been fixed is on the lower side and the same is not justified. It is also the case of the petitioner that the subsequent procedure followed is also not justified inasmuch as the 5th respondent had not deposited the amount within the period and therefore the sale is liable to be set aside.
The respondents have filed their objection statement. The action initiated is sought to be justified by referring to the manner in which the Recovery Certificate had been issued and the direction that had been issued by this Court in W.P. No. 25078/2005. The review petition in R.P. No. 133/2012 is also referred insofar as the amount that was required to be realised by way of sale. It is indicated that the amount of Rs. 7,85,000/- was quantified in the year 2005 and for the payment of the said amount, the interest was also to be added and as such keeping in view all these aspects, the extent of 25 cents which had been carved out was at a stage earlier to the filing of the petition by the employees and in that light when a direction had been issued by this Court in the earlier petition, the process was to be completed in the same manner for the said 25 cents that had been quantified. It is pointed out that the reserve price had been fixed by taking into consideration the guidance value and in any event, ultimately the price fetched in the auction is above the said amount that had been indicated and therefore at this juncture, the auction cannot be held as bad.
In the light of the contentions, insofar as the fact that the petitioner was due to pay the said amount to the said two employees and therefore, the recovery by way of arrears of land revenue was to be made pursuant to the action taken by respondents No. 1 to 4 cannot be in dispute. In any event a mandamus had been issued by this Court in W.P. No. 25078/2005 by order dated 24.08.2010. In that regard while complying with the order of this Court, the sale notice was issued on 14.05.2012 wherein the reserve price was indicated as Rs. 10,00,000/-. Immediately thereafter by the order dated 01.06.2012, the same has been enhanced to Rs. 11,25,000/-. Though the petitioner contends that such valuation is not justified and the value ought to have been more than the said amount, there is no material on record to indicate that the value in fact was much more as on the date the property had been carved out for sale and the notification being issued.
Further with regard to the contention that only a portion of the property that was required to satisfy the claim should have been sold, the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambati Narasayya Vs. M. Subba Rao and another, AIR 1990 SC 119 : (1989) 59 FLR 705 : (1989) 4 JT 50 : (1990) 97 PLR 40 : (1989) 2 SCALE 806 : (1989) 2 SCC 693 Supp : (1989) 1 SCR 451 Supp and in the case of Sai Enterprises Vs. Bhimreddy Laxmaiah and Another, (2007) 2 BC 607 : (2007) 2 CTC 826 : (2007) 146 PLR 640 : (2007) 4 SCALE 576 : (2007) 13 SCC 576 : (2007) 4 SCR 40 are relied on. To the said extent, there can be no dispute about the legal position. However, the same cannot be considered in abstract. As already indicated in the instant case, the extent of 25 cents had already been carved out at a stage when this Court was considering the matter in W.P. No. 25078/2005. At that stage, no such consideration was made by this Court nor did the petitioner who was the respondent to the said petition raise such issues and as such, this Court did not have an occasion to take note of the same before issuing the mandamus. If that be the position, to the extent of the property and value for which it has been sold, the petitioner cannot make out a grievance at this stage.
Insofar as the contention put forth by the petitioner that the respondent had deposited the amount within time, a perusal of the papers would disclose that after the 5th respondent had quoted the price, the same had not been accepted by the respondents for some time and thereafter by the notice dated 15.02.2013, the 5th respondent had been intimated that the amount is to be paid before 20.02.2013. Though the 5th respondent was in a position to pay the said amount, since a demand draft had been sought for the amount, he has thereafter paid the amount on 08.03.2013.
The learned counsel for the 5th respondent has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1078 : (2014) AIRSCW 1083 : (2014) 1 JT 481 : (2014) 1 SCALE 230 to contend that when the auction purchaser participates in a proceedings held for recovery and in such proceedings, the rights of a third party bona fide auction purchasers cannot be extinguished. If in that light, the present proceedings are also taken into consideration, there is no other person, who had submitted the offer to the property has taken a contention that the price as offered was either close to the price offered by the petitioner or that such purchaser if had been provided an opportunity would have deposited the amount within time. Further the auction that had been conducted was to realise the amount to pay the amount which was due by the petitioner to the employees and that action cannot be defeated by the petitioner by raising technical objections. Though the contentions are presently being urged by the petitioner, the petitioner had not established the bonafides by depositing the amount required for the purpose of being disbursed to the employees instead of bringing the property to sale. In addition, as noticed the sale was confirmed on 16.07.2012. Neither at a stage when the sale notices were issued on 14.05.2012 and 01.06.2012 nor immediately thereafter has the petitioner approached this Court though the petitioner contends that an objection had been raised before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner has approached this Court only on 27.02.2013 much after the sale was confirmed in favour of the 5th respondent and the amount realised was paid to the said employees. As such, I am of the opinion that the grievance as put forth by the petitioner would not merit consideration in this petition.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.