Summary
A completed temple-land auction was challenged by non-participants offering higher sums, and the High Court ordered re-auction decades later. The Court held that later offers and subsequent price appreciation did not establish that the original auction was defective or undervalued. No fraud, collusion or material irregularity had been shown, and the purported public-interest challenge lacked bona fides. The purchaser’s relief was restored, subject to a further Rs.15 lakh payment to the temple and completion of outstanding sale formalities.
Issues
- Whether subsequent higher offers or current land value justified disturbing the confirmed auction.
- Whether the non-participant’s purported public-interest challenge and its continuation by his heir were maintainable here.
- What further payment and consequential directions should accompany restoration of the purchaser’s relief.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe Court rejected the fact-specific use of purported public-interest proceedings to unsettle the completed auction without evidence of illegality, fraud or material undervaluation. (¶¶ 8.1-8.3, 8.9-8.13)
Held
- A widely attended auction followed by confirmation, full payment and execution of a sale deed could not be disturbed merely on later higher offers by non-participants. Material irregularity, illegality, fraud, collusion or a demonstrably throwaway sale required concrete evidence, which was absent here. (¶¶ 8-8.5, 8.8, 8.12)
- Fairness of consideration had to be assessed at the time of auction, not by appreciation over two decades. The purchaser’s later agreement to pay more to protect his rights did not establish undervaluation at the original sale. (¶¶ 8.4-8.5, 8.8, 8.13)
- The challenge was a private-interest attempt presented as public interest. The non-participant’s lack of demonstrated auction irregularity and the circumstances of his heir’s continuation did not justify the re-auction; the temple also sought to unsettle its own long-unchallenged sale. Courts must scrutinise the bona fides and public purpose of such proceedings. (¶¶ 8.3, 8.9-8.12)
- The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s judgment restored. The purchaser was directed to pay a further Rs.15 lakh to the temple within two weeks by demand draft or banker’s cheque, accounting for the agreed balance and interest from 1998. (¶ 9)
- Consequential sale steps, including registration and possession if not yet completed, were to follow. The appeals were allowed to that extent without costs; pending applications were disposed of. (¶ 9)
Result
Appeals allowed to the stated extent. Re-auction judgment set aside and Single Judge relief restored; purchaser to pay a further Rs.15 lakh within two weeks and complete outstanding registration and possession steps. No costs.