Satyanarain Pandey vs The State of Bihar and Others

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

In this writ petition, Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in Bhojpur Case No. 249 of 2000 (Annexure-4) affirming the order of the Commissioner, Patna Division dismissing the appeal preferred against the order of the Collector rejecting his application for delivery of possession.

Mr. Shahi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner is auction purchaser and he filed application for delivery of possession which was rejected initially by the Certificate Officer and confirmed up to the Board Revenue. Learned Counsel contended that rejection of application of the Petitioner for delivery of possession is erroneous and bad in law. He submitted that the application for delivery of possession filed by the Petitioner has erroneously been treated as Barred by limitation. According to him, the limitation for filing of application is to commence only from the date the sale certificate is granted by the Certificate Officer under Rule 50 of the Rules under Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act and in the present case no sale certificate was ever granted. He also contended that, in fact, there was delay on account of injunction granted by the Civil Court in a suit filed by the co-sharer of the Respondents which ultimately ended by dismissal of appeal on 25.6.1991 and the Petitioner filed application for delivery of possession on 31st March, 1992 i.e. within one year of the dismissal of the appeal. Thus, according to him, the application was not barred by law of limitation.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents referring to the order passed in the suit, contained in Annexure-1 submitted that Petitioner has not been vigilant in pursuing the matter. He contended that, in fact the delay was caused due to the Petitioner and in any view of the matter grant of sale certificate is not at all relevant for the purpose of limitation for filing of application for delivery of possession by the purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree. He submitted that as the Petitioner is auction-purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree, his case will be governed by the provision contained in Article 134 of the Limitation Act under which the limitation prescribed is of one year from the date when the sale becomes absolute and Rule 50 has no relevance.

I find substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Rule 50 of the Rules under Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act only provides that where a sale of immovable property becomes absolute, the Certificate officer shall grant a certificate specifying the property sold and the name of the purchaser. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has rightly referred to Section 31 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, which deals with the sale when becomes absolute or be set aside. According to the said provision, grant of sale certificate by the Certificate Officer has got nothing to do with the sale becoming absolute. Further, this Court finds that in fact the Petitioner can at best take advantage of the order of injunction upto 26.6.1986 when the suit filed by the co-sharer was dismissed and injunction stood vacated. It is not the case of the Petitioner that thereafter in appeal there was any interim order passed. Article 134 of the Limitation Act clearly provides one year as period of limitation to commence from the date when the sale becomes absolute for filing application for delivery of possession by a purchaser of immovable property at a sale in execution of a decree. Thus, filing an application by the Petitioner after almost six years of dismissal of the suit was hopelessly barred by limitation and u/s 27 of the Limitation Act the right to property by virtue of auction purchase extinguished on expiry of the aforementioned period of limitation. Moreover, this Court finds that on equity also the Petitioner does not have any case as it has been taken care of by the court-below who passed order in his favour for refund of the amount deposited by him with interest.

This Court, thus, does not find any infirmity in the impugned orders warranting interference. Writ petition is, thus, dismissed.