AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 03.10.2005, passed by the District Collector, Madurai District, ordering auction of the land of the Petitioner, in execution of the Award passed in favour of the Workman.
An employee of the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the non-payment of determined dues, filed a petition u/s 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the Petitioner.
The Labour Court passed an Award u/s 33(C)(2) of the Act against the Petitioner.
The Petitioner failed to honour the Award.
Thereafter, the Workman approached the District Collector, u/s 33(C)(1) of the Act, for execution of the Award passed by the Labour Court.
The District Collector, accordingly, initiated proceedings u/s 36 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. The land of the Petitioner was, accordingly, attached and put to auction on 05.04.2005.
The third Respondent herein, was the highest bidder in the auction. The third Respondent deposited 15% of the auction amount at the time of the auction. The total bid amount was Rs. 3,68,750/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only).
According to Section 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the balance amount of 85% was to be deposited within 30 days from the date of auction.
The pleaded case of the Petitioner is that the third Respondent paid only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) on 03.05.2005, the balance amount was said to have been deposited on 26.05.2005. It is the positive stand of the Petitioner that this is factually incorrect as the information received by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act, showed that the third Respondent has failed to pay the balance amount.
On the facts referred to above, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the auction sale, being in violation of the statutory provisions of law, deserves to be set aside, as the provisions of Section 36(3) of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 are mandatory in nature and non-deposit of 85% of the auction amount within a period of thirty days renders the sale void.
In support of the contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Lakshmanasami Gounder Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax , Selvamani and Others, , wherein it has been held as under:
Equally the second objection is insurmountable. It is mandatory that "the balance of the sale amount shall be remitted within 30 days from the date of auction" and if not the earnest money deposited is liable to forfeiture. Confirmation of the sale should precede the deposit of the sale amount. Section 36 mandates remittance of the balance of 85 percent of the sale consideration within 30 days from the date of auction. It is obligatory on the purchaser to deposit the amount within that period unless he is prevented by an order of the court or tribunal from so making deposit. The non-compliance renders the 15 percent deposit liable to forfeiture. Therefore, the confirmation of the sale without compliance is illegal. We hold that the sale is vitiated by manifest error of law and rightly set aside by the Additional District Collector, Salem (appellate authority). The High Court, both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed manifest error of law in interfering with the order of the appellate authority. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed and the order of the Additional District Collector, Salem restored, but in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on equity, contends that as per the interim direction issued by this Court, 50% of the amount due to the Workman already stands deposited. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has undertaken to pay the balance 50% of the amount within one month of the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
It is directed that on receipt of the amount, the second Respondent is directed to pay the amount in satisfaction of the Award to the workman and get the receipt, in proof thereof.
This writ petition is allowed, the Auction Sale, being in violation of mandatory provisions of law, is ordered to be quashed.
The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
The Respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the third Respondent towards auction sale.
No. costs.