High CourtsDivision Bench(1992) 03 AP CK 0031

K. Nagaraja Gupta vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 19 March 1992 · Citation: (1992) 1 ALT 582 : (1992) 1 AnWR 639

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.C. Pratap, C.J · B. Subhashan Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2600 of 1992

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 504 words

B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—In this writ petition, a challenge is made to the auction proceedings scheduled on 25-2-1992 under the impugned proceedings dt.11-12-1991. The objection of the petitioner to the said proposed sale is based on the ground that the property bearing Municipal Door Nos. 14/227 and 228 situated at Madanapalle of Chittoor district, belongs to him and that he is the absolute owner and possessor having purchased the same through the process of the Court in O.S. No. 113/90 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle. The said Civil proceedings were initiated, according to the petitioner, when the fourth respondent erstwhile owner, did not perform his part of the contract. The relief of specific performance was granted and a decree was passed by the said Court and even when the said decree was not obliged by the second respondent, the sale deed was executed by the court itself.

2.

His case is that agreement of sale was originally entered into on 19-11-1987 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000/- and on the date of agreement of sale, advance amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid and the balance was payable within the stipulated time thereafter. But, however, the 4th respondent had committed breach of performance of his obligations under the above contract of sale, which necessitated the petitioner to institute the above suit. His further case is that when he came to know about the auction, he had filed a claim petition, but the same was not at all entertained. However, the date of the claim petition is not mentioned and inasmuch as the claim petition itself was not received., according to the petitioner, the question of its adjudication did not arise.

3.

It is to be borne in mind that the proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act, are analogous to several rules under Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and when a claim petition is preferred by a third party objecting the sale, it is the bounden duty of the authority conducting the sale to enquire into the said claim petition. There is no option for the authority as to whether the said claim petition can be entertained or not. Once the claim is preferred, the same has to be enquired into and adjudicated upon as it affects property rights.

4.

In the circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a claim petition within two weeks from this day before the first respondent, and on filing of such claim petition, the first respondent shall entertain the same, enquire into the genuineness of the claim made by the petitioner after giving an opportunity and then decide the matter. Until the determination of the said proceedings on the claim petition to be filed, no further action shall be taken by the respondent pertaining to the house bearing Municipal Nos. 14/227 and 228 situated at East Kothapeta, Madanapalle village, Madanapalle Municipality of Chittoor District.

5.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Government Pleader''s fee Rs. 300/-.