SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAMversusMOTI AND ANR.

A                      SMT. DEVTIDEVI DAULAT RAM
                                           v.
                                  MOTi AND ANR.

                                  AUGUST 13, 1996
B
               [M.M. PUNCCHI AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]


           Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 : Sections 202 and 203.

        Auction sal,,......Bid amount--25% of bid amount deposited 011 the
C spot-Balance amount not deposited within two months as required under
  the Cod,,......Amozmt deposited beyond the presc1ibed limit of two molllhs from
  the date of auction-Auction sale set asid,,......Held, order setting aside auction
  sale was valid.

D       The appellant, owner of a saw-mill, committed default in the pay-
  ment of employer's share of provident fund. For recovery of the said
  provident fund his properties were put to auction sale on 27.6.1977. The
  respondent, a successful bidder in the auction sale, deposited 25% of the
  bid amount on the spot. The balance 3/4th amount was deposited on
  26.8.1977 i.e. beyond two months from the date of auction sale. The
E appellant's objection for setting aside the sale on the ground that the
  amount was not deposited within two months from the date of auction as
  required by section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was
  rejected by Sub-Divisional. Officer. The Additional Commissioner accepted
  the appellant's objection. He rejected the plea of respondent that an
F application was filed before the Auctioning Authority for deposit of the
  balance amount on 16.8.1977 i.e. within two months from the date of
  auction. He gave a finding that respondent's plea was not substantiated
  on record. Consequently the Additional Commissioner set aside the sale.
  On revision the Revenue Minister upset the finding given by Additional
  Commissioner without giving reasons and accordingly upheld the auction
G sale. A writ petition filed by the appellant before Bombay High Court was
  dismissed in limine. The appellant preferred an appeal before this Court
  and pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court deposited a sum
  of Rs. 50,000 in this Court.

H          Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                       596
          DEVTIDEVJDAUlATRAMv. MOTI[VENKATASWAMl,J.]                      597

      HELD : 1.1. A reading of sections 202 and 203 of Maharashtra Land          A
Revenne Code, 1966 clearly shows that the purchaser is expected to deposit
the balance of auction money within two months from the date of sale or
within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale whichever is earlier.
Admittedly, the first respondent has not deposited the amount as required
under section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. [599-H; 600-A]
                                                                                 B
      1.2. The Additional Commissioner gave a clear finding that the
respondent has failed to pay 3/4th balance amount before the expiry of two
months which period being earlier and consequently, the sale was set aside.
The Revisional Order passed by the Revenue Minister never attempted to
upset the finding by giving reasons. On the other hand, it proceeded on          C
certain assumptions to upset the well-considered findings given by the
Additional Commissioner. The findings of the Additional Commissioner
are accepted. The case put forward by the 1st respondent blaming the
revenue authorities for delayed deposit of 3/4th of the auction amount was
an after thought and was not established with the help of the records.
                                                              [601-D; G-HJ       D
      1.3. To meet the ends of justice, it is directed that the de11osits made
by the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court with interest accrued
thereon shall be paid to the first respondent. [602-C]

      Ambati Raghava!u v. Mova Venkamma and Ors., AIR (1962) A.P. 334,           E
held inapplicable.

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1583 of
1985.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.84 of the Bombay High                F
Court in W.P. No. 3141 of 1979.

        Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for the Appellant

        R. Venkataramani and D.M. Nargalkar, for the Respondents.
                                                                                 G
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      VENKATASWAMI, J. One Daulat Ram since dead whose wife is the
appellant before us was the owner of M/s Durga Prasad Saw Mills. He had
defaulted in the Payment of employer's share of Provident Fund to a tune
of Rs. 24,530. After following the procedure, the properties belonging to        H
    598                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the said Daulat Ram bearing Survey Nos. 183/4 and 228 situated in two
  different villages and measuring to an extent of 3.78 acres were brought to
  revenue sale for recovery of the said Provident Fund amount. The first
  respondent was the successful bidder in the revenue auction for a sum of
  Rs. 34,500 held on 27.6.1977. As per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
  1966 he deposited a sum of Rs. 8625 representing 25 per cent of the bid
B amount on the spot. As per section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
  Code, the balance of the bid amount has to .be deposited ·within two months
  from the date of the auction or 15 days from the confirmation of sale,
  whichever is earlier. Factually the sale was confirmed on 21.11.1977. The
  first respondent deposited the 3/4th amount on 23.11.1977 which is admit-
c tedly beyond 2 months from the date of auction. The appellant, widow of
  the said Daulat Ram preferred an objection to the Revenue sale. Apart
  from the appellant, one Banta Singh claiming to be the legatee of Daulat
  Ram under will also filed an objection. The objection of Banta Singh was
  ultimately thrown out and he is not before us and, therefore, we need not
  consider that further. The objection preferred by the appellant though not ·
D accepted by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramtek was accepted by Addition-
  al Commissioner. Nagpur Division by order dated 26.6.1979. Against that,
  the first respondent herein preferred a further revision to the Revenue
  Minister, Government of Maharashtra and foal Revision was accepted by
  an order dated 10.10.79. Consequently the objection raised by the appellant
  was rejected and the auction sale was· upheld. Aggrieved by that the
E appellant preferred a civil Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court
  which was dismissed by a one line order. Hence, the present appeal by
  special leave.

        Dr. N.M. Ghatate, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
F took us through all the orders of the authorities below and also the relevant
  provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, in particular, sections
  202 and 203 of the Code and contended that the order of the Additional
  Commissioner was firmly based on sections 202 and 203 and the Revisional
  Order of the Government does not contain any valid reason. to upset the
  order of the Additional Commissioner. He also invited our attention to the
G interim orders passed by this Court at the time of admission of the special
  leave directing !he appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000 which was later
  invested in fixed deposit from time to time.


          Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned counsel appearing for the first
H respondent submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Minister does
        DEVTIDEVIDAULATRAMv. MOTI[VENKATASWAMI,J.]                       599

not call for any interference and the first respondent should not suffers for   A
any !aches on the part of the revenue authorities in delaying the receipt of
the balance amount which the first respondent was willing to deposit within
time. According to Mr. Venkataramani, the bona fide of the first respon-
dent io deposit the balance amount within time can be verified from the
application made by him to the Auctioning Authority, namely, Naib Teh-          B
sildar on 16.8.1977 which is well within two months from the date of
auction. He submitted that the time fixed for deposit of the balance amount
cannot be rigidly viewed and in the facts of this case that should be treated
as procedural irregularity not affecting the auction sale itself. In support
of that he placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ambati Raghava/u v. Mova Venkamma and              C
Others, AIR 1962 A.P. 334.

     We have considered the rival submissions. Sections 202 and 203 of
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code read as follows :

        "202. - The full amount of purchase money shall be paid by the          D
        purchaser before the expiration of 2 months from the date on
        which the sale of the immoveable property took place or before
        the expiration of 15 days from the d3te on which the intimation of
        confirmation of sale is received by the purchaser whichever is
        earlier.                                                                E

            Provided that if the last date on which the purchase money is
        to be paid happens to be the Sunday or other authorised holiday,
        then the payment shall be made before the sunset of the first day
        of office after such date."                                             F
            "203 - In default of payment within the prescribed period of
        the full amount of purchase money of the moveable or immovable
        property the deposit after defraying therefrom the expenses of the
        sale shall be forfeited to the State Government and the property
        shall be resold and the defaulting purchaser shall forfeit all claims   G
        to the property or to any part of the same for which it may be
        subsequently sold".

      A reading of the above provisions clearly shows that the purchaser
is expected to deposit the balance of auction money within 2 months from        H
    600                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A the date of sale or within 15 days from the date of confirmation of sale
    whichever is earlier. Admittedly, the first respondent has not deposited the
    amount as required under section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
    Code. The excuse given by the first respondent before the authorities was
    that he filed an application before the Auctioning Authority, namely, Naib
    Tehsildar for deposit of the balance amount on 16.8.1977 which is well
B
    within two months from the date of auction and the said application was
    endorsed by the Naib Tehsildar to wait the further orders of the Sub
    Divisional Officer, Ramtek. That was the reason, according to the first
    responqent, for his inability to pay the balance amount within the time
    prescribed by section 202 of the Code. That has been cogently and
c   elaborately dealt with by the Additional Commissioner, Land Revenue
    while rejecting similar contention. In fact, the Additional Commissioner
    has clearly doubted the existence of such application on the date on which
    it was alleged to have been presented before the Naib Tehsildar. The
    Additional Commissioner further stated as follows :
D
                 "In fact, there was no need to make any endorsement on the
             application stating that the orders would be sought from sub-
             Divisional Officer, and communicated to the auction-purchaser. I
             also find that there is nothing on record to show whether this
             application was at all submitted to sub-Divisional Officer and
E            whether any orders thereon were passed by the Sub-Divisional
             Officer. It is strange that the auction-purchaser did not approach
             the sub-Divisional Officer before whom the proceedings for con-
             firmation of sale were pending....... It is not his case that the
             authorities refused to accept the amount when he offered the same.
F            The plea of the appellant that he could not make the payment
             before the expiry of two months on the directive of the court is
             not, therefore, valid - firstly because there was no need to seek any
             such directive and secondly, if at all the appellant wanted to seek
             any clarification, the proper forum for him would have been to
             approach the sub-Divisional Officer to whom the proceedings had
G            been submitted for confirmation of the auction."


           In para 9, the Additional Commissioner has given reasons for doubt-
     ing the receipt of the alleged application dated 16.8.1977. The Additional
H    Commissioner states :
        DEVTIDEVIDAULATRAMv. MOTi [VENKATASWAMI,J.)                     601

            "This objection was already on record when the appellant's         A
        counsel presented written arguments before the Sub-Divisional
        Officer. Perusal of the written argument shows that there is no
        reference to the application dated 16.8.1977 in which the appellant
        had sought directives from the Naib-Tehsildar regarding payment
        of 3/4th amount. It is really strange that the appellant should have
                                                                               B
        kept silent on this vital issue when he presented his case before
        the Sub-Divisional Officer. Had he really been prevented from
        paying the balance amount on account of directives issued by the
        Naib-Tehsildar his normal reaction would have been to point out
        to the sub-Divisional Officer that he could not pay the balance of
        the amount because there was an endorsement on his application         C
        dated 16.8.1977 that he would be intimated regarding payment of
        the balance on receipt of the orders from Sub-Divisional Officer
        regarding payment of the balance amount."

      On the basis of the above clear finding, the Additional Commissioner     D
held that the first respondent herein has failed to pay 3/4th balance amount
before the expiry of 2 months which period being earlier and consequently,
the sale was set aside.

       This order of Additional Commissioner was upset by the Revenue
Minister without really meeting the findings rendered by the Additional        E
Commissioner, but proceeding on the assumption that the application of
the first respondent dated 16.8.1977 was on record and he was misled by
the Revenue Authority from depositing the balance amount within time.
Therefore, the Revisional Order proceeded that the first respondent could
not be treated as a defaulter.                                                 F

       We do not think we can accept the finding rendered in the Revisional
Order in the light of clear findings based on record given by the Additional
Commissioner. As pointed out earlier, the Revisional Order never at-
tempted to upset the findings by giving reasons. On the other hand, it         G
proceeded on certain assumptions to upset the well-considered findings
given by the Additional Commissioner. The Division Bench Judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on by the learned counsel for the
first respondent will be of no help as we accept on facts, the findings of
the Additional Commissioner. The case put forward by the 1st respondent
blaming the revenue authorities for delayed deposit of 3/4th of the auction    H
    602                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   amount was an after-thought and was not established with the help of the
    records.

          We have already noticed that the appellant has deposited a sum of
    Rs. 50,000 pursuant to the orders of this Court on 15.4.1985 and that
    amount has been invested in fixed deposit with periodical renewal and that
B   amount is available for disbursement. It is also admitted that the provident
    fund amount due has been adjusted from the sale amount. In these cir-
    cumstances to meet the ends of justice, we order that the deposits made
    by the appellant pursuant to the orders of this Court with interest accrued
    thereon shall be paid to the first respondent.
c        In the result, the appeal is allowed and the first respondent .is
    permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant with interest
    ~ccrued thereon. No costs.·

    T.N.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.