FAROOQ HASAN,J. - (1.) A thumb -nail sketch of the primary facts will help resolve the controversy which has arisen in this second appeal.
(2.) AN abadi land situated in village Chaksu (District Jaipur) measuring 150 ft. x 25 ft. as described by letters A.B.C and D in the map annexed to the plaint, was auctioned by the Municipal Board, Chaksu (defendant -respondent) for a sum of Rs. 545, the highest bid put by the appellant and accepted by the respondent -Board -Whereupon 1/4th of the said bid amount was deposited by the appellant on June 20, 1968 and the rest, on March 19, 1969, and its possession was delivered by the Board to the appellant. How ever, since no heed to the request of the plaintiff -appellant to execute a 'patta' was paid by the respondent Board, the appellant had submitted an application along with a plan of proposed constructions on March 13, 1973, that too, in vain, and then the appellant served a notice Under Section 170(8) of the Raj. Municipalities Act, 1959, in addition to the notice to the respondent No. 2 Under Section 80, CPC and to the respondent Board Under Section 271 of the Municipalities Act on March 28, 1975. On non -reply to the aforesaid notices, the plaintiff commenced construction work which was forcibly stopped by the employees of the respondent Board. This led the plaintiff to institute a civil suit on 27th April, 1976, seeking direction against the respondent Board to execute a 'patta' in addition to a declaration that as the plaintiff has acquired ownership he is entitled to raise construction, and further seeking a restraint against the respondent Board and its employees from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The respondent -Board, in its written statement, admitting the fact of auction of the land in question and the receipt of notices, rescinded that the plaintiff was delivered possession, apart from contending that the auction in favour of the plaintiff was not confirmed by the Collector (defendant -respondent No. 2) and, therefore, the respondent -Board could not issue Patta in favour of the plaintiff, along with sanctioned plan for raising constructions. The Collector (defendant) did not file any written statement.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: [1] whether the Collector had no authority to cancel the auction in respect of the land in question? [2] whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain a 'Patta' and raise constructions? [3] Relief? Both the defendants remained in conspicuous, being away from the proceedings which were ex -parte taken. How ever, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding that, no rights have been treated to the plaintiff and so, he is not entitled to any of the reliefs and further observing that although order refusing confirmation of auction has not been placed by the plaintiff but, since the plaintiff has not stated that it has not been cancelled, it could be presumed that auction has been cancelled. The trial Court placed reliance on the provisions of Section 80 of the Municipalities Act which envisages that if a land is auctioned for an amount exceeding Rupees 500/ - in case of city and Rupees 200/ - in cash of any other Municipality then unless it is confirmed by the Collector, no title is passed to the purchaser. ;