K. N. Singh, J. - (1.) (for self and for. R. C. Srivastava, J.) :-These are two petitions which raise common questions of fact and law. We consider it necessary to dispose both these petitions by a common order.
(2.) SETH Banarasi Dass was the owner of 94,320 equity shares having face value of Rs. 10/- each and 2260 preference shares of the face value of Rs. 100/-each in Messers Jaswant Sugar Mills Limited, Meerut. SETH Banarasi Dass was in arrears of taxes and other dues, a certificate for recovery of the amount due was issued against him. The Collector, Meerut took steps to recover an amount of Rs, 61,48,624.21 as arrears of land revenue from SETH Banarasi Dass. The Collector attached the aforesaid equity and preference shares held by SETH Banarasi Dass and issued sale proclamation for the sale of the said shares and appointed the Sub-Divisional Officer of Meerut as the Sale Officer. Several dates were fixed for the sale of the shares but inspite of due publicity through news papers nobody turned up to purchase the shares. Ultimately the Sale Officer fixed 2nd January, 1974 for the auction sale of the shares. The time, date and place fixed for the sale was duly publicised. The auction sale was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerut on 2-1-1974 and a number of persons participated in the bid. SETH Hira Lal and Shiv Raj Gupta who made bits jointly were the highest . bidders, the amount of their bid was Rs. 2,90,000/-. The Sale Officer accepted their bid and finalised the sale in their favour. SETH Hira Lal and Shiv Raj Gupta desposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 2-1-1974 and a receipt was issued to them which was signed by the Officer concerned. The highest bidders deposited the remaining amount in the sub-treasury of Meerut Tahsil on 7-1-1974 after obtaining the order of the Sale Officer and a receipt was issued to them. SETH Banarasi Dass made an application to the Collector on 11-1-1974 raising objections against the auction sale with a prayer that the auction sale held on 2-1-1974 be set aside. The Collector after obtaining opinion from the District Government Counsel (Civil) set aside the auction sale by his order dated 16th January, 1974 and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to hold the auction sale afresh. SETH Hira Lal and Shiv Raj Gupta thereupon filed writ petition No. 879 of 1974 ohallenging the order of the Collector dated 16th January, 1974. Under the interim order of this Court impugned order of the Collector was stayed. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition No. 879 of 1974, the Collector appears to have realised the mistake committed by him as he issued notice to Seth Banarasi Dass as well as to auction purchasers, namely, Hira Lal and Shiv Raj Gupta to appear before him on 13-8-1974 for hearing in relation to the auction sale held on 2-1-1974. Both the parties were directed to put up their case before the Collector. The Collector heared the parties on 13th and 20th August, 1974 and he fixed 24th August, 1974 for final orders. But before the Collector could pass orders, Seth Banarasi Dass filed writ petition No. 4963 of 1974 before this Court on 23rd August, 1974 which was admitted and connected with the writ petition No. 879 of 1974 filed by the auction purchasers. This Court issued an interim order on 23-8-1974 restraining the Collector from reviewing or recalling his order dated 16-1-1974. The learned counsel for the auction purchasers contended that on the deposit of the entire sale money the sale became absolute and the Collector had no jurisdiction to set aside the same. On the conclusion of the sale an interest in the property had accrued in favour of the auction purchasers. The Collector had no authority in law to set aside auction sale without hearing or giving any opportunity to the auction purchasers. The order of the Collector dated 16-1-1974 is null and void as it was passed in voilation of natural justice. We find considerable force in the contention raised on behalf of auction purchasers. It is admitted case of the parties that the recovery proceedings were held for the recovery of the dues from Seth Banarasi Dass as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951. Section 282 of the said Act lays down that the attachment and sale of moveable property for recovery of the arrears as land revenue is to be made according to the law in force for the time being for attachment and sale of moveable property in execution of a decree of a Civil Court under Section 281 of the Act. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regulating the attachment and sale of moveable property in execution of a decree of Civil Court are, therefore, applicable. Order 21 Rule 77 clause (1) of the CPC lays down that :- "Where moveable property is sold by public auction the price of each lot shall be paid at the time of sale or as soon after as the Officer or other person holding the sale directs, and in default of payment the property shall forthwith be re-sold." Clause (2) of the rule further lays, down that :- "On payment of the purchase-money, the Officer or other person holding the sale shall grant a receipt for the same, and the sale shall become absolute."
(3.) THE provisions contained in Rule 77 of the CPC make it amply clear that if the price is paid at the time of sale or afterwards with the permission of the Officer holding the sale and a receipt is issued to the auction purchaser the sale shall become absolute No order of any other authority is necessary for confirming the sale in case of moveable property. THE Officer conducting the sale is empowered to grant time to the purchaser to desposit the purchase-money within the specified period. In default of payment the property shall be resold but if the purchaser deposits the purchase-money and a receipt is issued to him, the sale would become absolute and no further order or step would be necessary to be taken. In Lokman Chhabilal Jain Bani v. Motilal Tulsiram Agarwal, AIR 1939 Nagpur 269 a Division Bench interpreted Order 21 Rule 77 of the CPC and held that :- "It appears clear from those provisions that so far as the sale of moveable property is concerned it is the Officer who is holding the sale who concludes the matter by saying who has purchased, within what time the purchase price must be paid, by receiving purchase-money and by granting a receipt. THEreupon the sale becomes complete, property passes and the matter is over." We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by Nagpur High Court. A similar view was taken by Calcutta High Court while interpreting Order 21 Rule 77 of the CPC (67, Calcutta Weekly Notes 350).;