Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Sukumar Kumar Patil, was the successful bidder at an auction sale held on 3 December 2008 for property attached due to dishonour of cheques issued by respondent no. 1, Shri Prakash Appaso Patil. The petitioner deposited 25% of the bid price on the auction date and the balance within seven days. Respondent no. 1 made an application on 18 December 2008 to the Collector under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to set aside the sale, but did not deposit the amounts required under the proviso to Section 210 (5% of purchase price to the purchaser, arrears amount, and costs). On 29 December 2008, respondent no. 1 tendered a cheque for Rs.6,65,000 to the Tahsildar. The Collector, Kolhapur, on 21 January 2009, set aside the sale. The petitioner challenged this order before the Additional Commissioner, Pune, who on 29 October 2009 rejected respondent no. 1's application. Respondent no. 1 then filed a revision before the Minister (Revenue), who on 12 March 2010 allowed the revision and restored the Collector's order. The petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court held that the application under Section 210 must be accompanied by the mandatory deposits; the Collector's order was without jurisdiction as the deposits were not made with the application. The Minister's revision order was set aside, and the Additional Commissioner's order rejecting the application was restored.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue Code - Auction Sale - Setting Aside Sale - Section 210 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Mandatory Deposit - The application to set aside a sale under Section 210 must be accompanied by deposits of 5% of purchase price to the purchaser, the arrears amount, and costs of sale. Failure to do so renders the application invalid and the sale cannot be set aside. (Paras 4-6)
B) Land Revenue Code - Revision - Powers of Minister - Section 210 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The revisional authority cannot condone non-compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 210. The order of the Collector setting aside the sale without proper deposit was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister (Revenue) could set aside an auction sale under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 when the application to set aside the sale was not accompanied by the mandatory deposits as required under the proviso to Section 210.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Minister's order dated 12 March 2010, and restored the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 29 October 2009 rejecting respondent no. 1's application to set aside the sale.
Law Points
- Section 210 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- mandatory deposit requirements
- application to set aside sale
- revision powers
- limitation period
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 88
WRIT PETITION NO. 2738 OF 2010
Mr. Vijay Killedar for the petitioner, Ms. Leena Patil i/by M.S. Karnik for respondent no. 1, Ms. Aparna Vhatkar, A.G.P. for respondent no. 2
Shri Prakash Appaso Patil and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Minister (Revenue) allowing revision and setting aside auction sale.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Minister's order dated 12 March 2010 and restoration of the Additional Commissioner's order rejecting respondent no. 1's application to set aside the sale.
Filing Reason
The Minister allowed the revision petition of respondent no. 1 and set aside the auction sale in favour of the petitioner, despite respondent no. 1's failure to comply with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Previous Decisions
Collector, Kolhapur set aside the sale on 21 January 2009; Additional Commissioner, Pune rejected respondent no. 1's application on 29 October 2009; Minister (Revenue) allowed revision on 12 March 2010.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to set aside a sale is valid if not accompanied by the mandatory deposits as required under the proviso to Section 210.
Whether the Minister (Revenue) could condone the non-compliance with the deposit requirements and set aside the sale.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that respondent no. 1's application was not accompanied by the mandatory deposits and thus the Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the sale.
Respondent no. 1 contended that the deposits were made subsequently and the Collector's order was valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The application under Section 210 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to set aside a sale must be accompanied by the mandatory deposits of 5% of purchase price to the purchaser, the arrears amount, and costs of sale. Non-compliance renders the application invalid and the sale cannot be set aside. The revisional authority cannot condone such non-compliance.
Judgment Excerpts
The application was neither accompanied by or made upon depositing the amounts as contemplated by section 210 of the Code.
The Collector, Kolhapur made an order on 21st January, 2009 exercising powers under section 210 of the Code setting aside the sale in favour of the petitioner.
Procedural History
Auction sale held on 3 December 2008; petitioner deposited full amount by 10 December 2008; respondent no. 1 applied on 18 December 2008 under Section 210 without deposits; Collector set aside sale on 21 January 2009; Additional Commissioner rejected application on 29 October 2009; Minister allowed revision on 12 March 2010; present writ petition filed on 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 210
