Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To Land Sold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court

PRIYANKA PREET
13 Feb 2022 4:12 PM GMT
No Feater Of Rights When No Condition Is Attached To Land Sold In Public Auction: Gujarat High Court
x

"When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land in question", the Gujarat High Court has held. The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation in a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals)...

"When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to sale of the land in question", the Gujarat High Court has held.

The Bench comprising Justice AP Thaker made this observation in a petition challenging the order passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals) Revenue Department ('SSRD') vesting the Petitioner's land with the Government.

When the land was sold in a public auction and when there is no condition attached to the said order of sale, then there can not be a feater of the rights of the person concerned to the sale of the land in question.

Background

In the instant case, the disputed land was owned by the Private Respondent's husband vide a grant order passed by the Mamlatdar. Subsequently, there was a partition in the family owing to which the said land came in the share of the Private Respondent. The Petitioner purchased said land from the Private Respondent vide a registered sale deed in 1981. However, the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings against the Petitioner on the ground that the transaction was in breach of the original grant order and therefore, the said property was to be considered as Government land. The Petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector who rejected the appeal. The revision application of the Petitioner was also rejected.

The Petitioner contested that the authority initiated proceedings after 24 years in 2006-07. On the ground of delay, the proceedings deserved to be canceled by the higher revenue authority. This was in consonance with the decision in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasasya Collie Sangham Versus K. Suresh Reddy [2003 (7) SCC 667]. Further, the authority had granted the land to the husband of the Private Respondent and the predecessor of the current Petitioner participated in the public auction and being the highest bidder, was granted the land by the Government. This land could not be designated as new tenure land, per the Petitioner. Per contra, the Respondent State averred that the land was transferred to the Petitioner vide a registered sale deed which was in breach of certain conditions basis which the land was sold to the husband of the Private Respondent as a new tenure land.

Judgment

The Bench observed that the Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasasya judgment dealt with Section 50(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy And Agricultural Land Act, 1950, wherein the words 'at any time' was used. The Apex Court had averred that the exercise of suo motu power 'at any time' did not prescribe any particular date. However, the same should not be arbitrary or unguided. Significantly, the Bench noted that the sale transaction was entered into in 1981 and mutated in 1982. Since then, there was a lapse of 24 years and suo motu power had been exercised by the authorities. This was not within the reasonable period of time as laid down in the precedent. The High Court also concluded that no condition was attached while granting the land to the aforesaid person who purchased it in a public auction. Accordingly, the action of the authorities was deemed unsustainable in the eyes of law and the order of the Deputy Collector was quashed.

Case Title: HIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD @ VIRABHAI LAKHABHAI BHARWAD Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 5 other(s)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 36

Case No.: C/SCA/12388/2015

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment


Next Story