Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Prasanna B. Varale, Supreme Court
Bar Contained in Sec.79A,B & C Of Karnataka Land Reforms Act Repealed In 2020; Objection Relating To Misrepresentation As Agriculturist Not Significant: Supreme Court
|The Appeals before the Supreme Court arose from an order of the Karnataka High Court.
While upholding the auction sale proceedings, the Supreme Court has held that the bar contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, stood repealed in 2020 with retrospective effect from March 1, 1974 and thus, the objection relating to the litigant’s misrepresentation as an agriculturist would lose its significance.
The Appeals before the Apex Court arose from an order of the Karnataka High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale stated, “In any case, the bar contained in Sections 79A, 79B and 79C of the 1961 Act stood repealed in 2020 with retrospective effect from 01.03.1974, and therefore the objection relating to misrepresentation by the appellant would lose its significance.”
Factual Background
The respondent was the Managing Director of Hoysala Thermo Farmers Pvt. Ltd., which had borrowed money from the second respondent-KFSC, with the respondent acting as a guarantor. Due to defaults in repayment, Karnataka State Finance Corporation (KSFC) initiated recovery proceedings before the Principal District Judge and was granted a decree for Rs 2,61,28,017.57 paise against the Company. The Executing Court allowed KFSC’s application and directed the attachment of the land. However, when the Court bailiff and a KSFC official attempted to identify the property, they were unsuccessful, leading to the return of the attachment warrant.Ved Vignam Maha Vidya Peeth (VVMP), a Trust, filed an application for the issuance of a sale certificate in the execution petition.
The application was sworn by the appellant, as a Trustee, claiming that the Trust had purchased the land. The auction was confirmed, and a sale certificate was issued in the appellant’s favour as a Trustee. The respondent who owned adjacent survey numbers, commissioned a survey on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate issued by the Executing Court comprised not only Sy.No.67 that was sold in execution, but also other survey numbers that were not sold in the execution. The Respondent also executed a gift deed in favour of his wife, transferring the title of the aforesaid adjacent land.
After various rounds of litigation, the parties ended up approaching the Apex Court. The appellant preferred the Civil Appeal against the two directions given by the High Court in the impugned order relating to additional payment of Rs 25 lakhs per acre to the respondent as additional sale price, and secondly, the direction to the District Court to conduct the survey of the auction property and to fix its boundaries. The respondent and his wife preferred Civil Appeal against the first High Court order whereby the auction sale, its confirmation and the sale certificate were confirmed in favour of the appellant. A Contempt Petition was also filed by the respondent alleging that the appellant was proceeding to raise constructions despite the interim injunction granted by this Court.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the appellant, auction-purchaser, had purchased the plot comprising three parts with a total area of 5-1/2 acres. Considering that the area had been specified of the three parts, the Bench held that the appellant would not be entitled to hold possession of any more area than what was purchased in the auction and as mentioned in the sale certificate.
It was further noticed that the issue relating to the identification and measurement had been raised in the very beginning, and there are reports of the Bailiff, who had gone to deliver the possession stating that there was difficulty in identifying the same. “In the garb of boundaries being mentioned, the appellant auction purchaser cannot claim any more area than what was put up for auction and thereafter purchased by him. Therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere with the direction of the High Court to get the survey carried out for specific measurements of the purchased property”, it said.
“Insofar as the direction for payment of Rs.25 lakhs per acre as additional sale consideration to the respondent is concerned, we do not wish to interfere with the same, considering the conduct of the appellant, whose dual role casts doubt on the entire proceedings. However, since the matter had earlier travelled up to this Court, we are not inclined to disturb the auction or the sale certificate. At the same time, we are of the view that the additional amount directed by the High Court is both well-deserved and justified”, it held.
The Bench was of the view that the respondent’s claim in his appeal for setting aside the auction proceedings and the sale certificate had been rightly rejected by the High Court in view of his conduct, as he failed to take any steps to challenge the sale for more than two years.
The Bench held, “Further, the application filed under Order 21 Rule 90 read with Rule 47 CPC, wherein all such objections had been raised as far back as 2002, was rejected up to this Court. Hence, commencing a second round of objections on the pretext that the appellant had been shifting his stand as to who is the purchaser which is an issue already raised in the earlier objections, could not have been permitted and is clearly barred in law.”
Thus, agreeing with the direction of the High Court to confirm the auction sale proceedings, the Bench dismissed the appeals and closed the contempt proceedings.
Cause Title: R Raghu v. G M Krishna (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1040)