AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Madhavan Nair, J.—The plaintiff is the appellant. His suit is to recover possession of B class lands relinquished by the Railway Company
and included in Survey Nos. 65/Bl and 65/B3 of Azhiym Amsom. These lands were first sold to the defendant by the Tahsildar and possession
was given to him. Afterwards on an objection raised by the present plaintiff, the sale to the defendant was cancelled and the plaintiff was given
these properties with right to recover them from defendant. The questions for determination are (I) whether the defendant has obtained a valid
assignment of the plaint properties and (2) what is the legal effect of the subsequent assignment of these properties to the plaintiff. If the defendant
has got a valid assignment of the plaint properties it follows that the subsequent assignment of the same properties to the plaintiff can give him no
right to recover possession. Both the Courts below found that there was a valid assignment of the plaint properties to the defendant and have
dismissed the plaintiff''s suit.
Mr. Menon for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the Tahsildar who sold these properties to the defendant had no authority given to him by
the Collector to sell them to the defendant, (2) that even if he had the authority, the Collector who was the agent of the Government for effecting
the sale of the relinquished Railway, lands under the Board''s Standing Order No. 90 Clauses (4) and (5), had no power to delegate his function to
the Tahsildar and, therefore, the sale by the Tahsildar is invalid, and (3) that since in conducting the sale, the Tahsildar contravened some of the
special rules, under the Board''s Standing Order, the sale to the defendant of these lands is invalid.
Exhibits I, II and III are the proceedings relating to the sale of these lands. As regards the first point, a perusal of Ex. II makes it quite clear that
the Tahsildar had power given to him by the Collector to sell them.
The next point for consideration is whether the Collector could validly delegate this duty of selling the lands to the Tahsildar. In my opinion, this
is not a case strictly speaking of delegation at all. It is admitted that the Collector has the power to effect the sale himself. The Collector, having
decided to sell these lands, has entrusted the purely ministerial work of carrying out jthe sale to the Tahsildar. I think this in law he is entitled to do.
It is next argued that the Tahsildar, when he carried out the sale, did not observe some of the rules relating to the sale. It was stated that he did
not sell these lands by public auction as he is bound to do under the rules and that at best with regard to one of the survey numbers, viz., 65 B/3,
Jie did not sell it to the adjoining land owner, that is to say, that the defendant is not the adjoining land-owner to whom he ought to have sold it. I
am not quite sure, whether 65 B/3 is not contiguous to the defendant''s land because it was stated at the Bar that it does seem to touch it at one
point. However, I do not think that the non-observance of these rules can make the sale to the defendant absolutely void. It is admitted that the
sale was not affected by fraud, or misrepresentation, or mutual mistake. Exhibit. II shaws that the Tahsildar acted strictly within, the, scope of his
authority. In my opinion the rules, violated are nothing more than instructions to the officer disposing of Railway B class land. They do not in any
way define the scope of the authority of the officer iconcerned in making the sale. As pointed out by their Lordships in Sappani Asari v. Collector
of Coimbatore 26 M.P 742 : 12 M.L.J. 417: ""Unless the distinction between so much of the rules as is really in the nature of a power-of-attorney
defining the scope of the authority of darkhast officers and the rest whieh are really in the nature only of instructions to such officers while exercising
the power conferred upon them, is fully recognised and enforced, the entire body of darkhast rules will become unworkable in Civil Courts."" In
Tfie Secretary of State for India v. Bundeppa of Konakondla 1 Ind. Cas. 76 : 32 M.P 300 : 19 M.L.J. 206 : 5 M.L.T. 31 it was held that a grant
of land on darkhast by an authority competent to make such grant cannot, where no fraud, has been practised in obtaining such, grant, be set aside
on the ground that it was not made in the manner prescribed by the Board''s Standing Order. The offer of the defendant in this case was accepted
by a duly authorised officer and that acceptance was communicated to him and he was also put in possession of the properties. In view of these
authorities, I do not think that the sale to the defendant can be said to be vitiated by the non-observance of these rules.
It follows, therefore, that the defendant has obtained a valid assignment of the plaint properties and that the subsequent assignment of them to
the plaintiff is invalid. In any event in vieAv of Exs. C and C (1), the assignment of 65 B-l to the defendant will stand. I dismiss the second appeal
with costs.