TUMDU DHANSING Vs. PROVINCE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment dated 3-1-1939, of Mr. R.R. Karnik, who was then First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia. That a delay of nearly seven years should intervene before an appeal is disposed of by this Court is a deplorable state of affairs and is one which it is to be hoped the new rules which have been recently introduced will prevent ever happening in the future. In this particular case, however, the delay has in part been brought about by the fact that when this appeal first came before this Court, certain documents which the Court considered necessary had not been disclosed and were not available, and also because the case was adjourned in order that Government might have an opportunity of being represented by the Advocate-General, having regard to the public importance of the questions involved.

(2.) The suit concerns an alleged auction sale conducted by a Mamlatdar as a revenue officer of Government, by which it is alleged that property of the appellant of substantial value, and which he now seeks by this action to recover possession, was sold for Re. 1 only to another Government official, viz., a revenue patil, acting for and on behalf of Government. This appears to be a very startling occurrence. But this Court has been informed by the learned Advocate-General that what was done is in accordance with Resolutions of Government, passed by the Government of Bombay in its Public Works Department. It is not suggested that any such resolution has any statutory effect or that it is anything more than an administrative instruction by Government for the guidance of its Revenue Officers. The first Resolution is No. 8766/27 and is dated 4-10-1934, and in its preamble it recites a letter from the Collector of East Khandesh in which that officer pointed out that it had been brought to his notice that in several cases in respect of the recovery of Provincial toll arrears, though the land of the defaulter and his sureties had been put up for sale, there were no bids. After referring to the fact that the economic depression was the cause for lack of bids, the officer also expressed the belief that the main reason for this state of things is that the defaulting contractors or their sureties are able to influence the intending bidders. The officer then expressed the following opinion: In my opinion in order to avoid the trouble of postponing sales from time to time for want of bidders, it seems necessary to provide for stringent measures in a few selected cases of contumacious defaults and therefore propose that permission may be given to buy the defaulter's property on behalf of Government on a nominal bid of one rupee. The consequent resolution is in these terms: The purchase of defaulter's property by the Collector of East Khandesh on behalf of Government, on a nominal bid of one rupee is approved. Government are further pleased to direct that the method of recovery of arrears of excise revenue approved in Government Resolution, Revenue Department, No. 474/33, dated 30 August, 1933, should be made generally applicable to the recovery of arrears of toll revenue as recommended by the Commissioner, Central Division.

(3.) A further resolution No. 4135/33 of 16-4-1936, appears to make this procedure generally applicable, since it provides: The procedure of purchasing on behalf of Government a defaulter's property by offering a nominal bid should be adopted in order to effect a speedy recovery of Government dues, in cases where a real difficulty is experienced in making such recoveries and no purchaser is forthcoming to buy the land. This procedure can, however, be followed only in respect of such Government dues as are recoverable as arrears of land revenue. It should not be adopted except as a last resort when the various remedies for the recovery of the dues have failed or unless it is clear that bidders are deterred from offering bids by other reasons than purely economic considerations.