Sooraj Kumar vs Tahsildar
- Neutral2016 INSC 356
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an auction sale of a property conducted in recovery proceedings is challenged, the sale may be recalled and the property restored to the owner if an amnesty or settlement scheme is available to the owner and the owner is prepared to pay the dues in accordance with that scheme, provided an application for such relief is timely filed for consideration by the appropriate authority.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J U D G M E N T
2. The appellant is aggrieved of the recovery proceedings initiated against him culminating in the auction sale of the property belonging to him.
3. It appears that the Government had auctioned the property to itself on a nominal price of Re.1/- apparently in full and final settlement of dues.
4. It is submitted that the whole proceedings of auction are vitiated since there was no proper inquiry on the market value 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the appellant, on instruction, submits that the appellant is prepared to settle the whole dues as per the Amnesty Scheme 1 6. We make it clear that in case there is any Amnesty Scheme available to the appellant and in case the appellant is prepared to pay the amounts as per the Scheme, the auction proceedings may be recalled and the property be restored in favour of the appellant.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that an application has already been filed by the appellant in that regard. If that be so, appropriate action on the application filed by the appellant be taken within a period of three months from today.
9. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of. No costs.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 29, 2016
2
ITEM NO.49 COURT NO.10 SECTION XIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23596/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17/11/2014 in WA No. 702/2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam)
SOORAJ KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
TAHSILDAR & ANR Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and interim relief and office report)
Date : 29/04/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Roy Abraham, adv.
Mr. Gautam Shiva Shankar, Adv.
Ms. Seema Jain, Adv.
Ms. Chandrani Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Himinder Lal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran,Adv.
Ms. Niraj Jha, Adv.
Mr. Saurabh Misra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is disposed of in terms of signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan)
SR. P.A. COURT MASTER
(Non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free