AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Respondents appellants, aggrieved by order dated 04.09.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6083 of 2009, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that for the dues of one Gopi Nath, his tractor was attached and put to auction on 10.11.2008. The bid of the writ petitioner respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ''respondent'') being the highest, i.e. Rs. 1,27,000/, was accepted. The respondent deposited 25 percent of the bid amount on the same day and balance 75 percent on 17.11.2008. Thereafter, he prayed for delivery of the tractor, which he purchased in auction, but the same was not released in his favour.
Accordingly, the respondent filed the writ petition, inter alia, praying for release of the tractor in his favour. Prayer of the respondent was resisted on the ground that the Sub Divisional Magistrate by his order dated 29.12.2008 cancelled the auction, which is evident from the letter dated 07.02.2009 of the Tehsildar of Tehsil Chail. It seems that during the pendency of the writ petition, a bankers cheque of Rs.1,27,000/ was given to the respondent. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, directed for payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/ and damages of Rs. 20,000/ to the respondent. While doing so, the learned Judge found the act of the appellants herein to be highly illegal. The learned Judge also took into account the report of Tehsildar dated 20.12.2008, which mentions that the tractor is a new tractor and its sale at Rs. 1,27,000/ is very low. However, the fact of the matter is that the tractor is of 2002 model. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration the fact that even before receipt of valuation report from the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, the Tehsildar had cancelled the auction. From the report of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer dated 12.01.2009, it is evident that the value of the tractor was Rs. 1,35,000/ and its model was 2002.
It is well known that in public auction, actual price of the property is not received. Here, in the present case, according to the valuation of the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, value of the tractor was Rs. 1,35,000/ and the respondent''s bid of Rs. 1,27,000/ was accepted.
In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the award of cost and damages is just and proper and no interference is called for in this appeal.
We are of the opinion that this appeal is absolutely misconceived and is liable to be dismissed with cost and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with cost of Rs. 5,000/ to be paid by the appellants to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today.