Public auction under revenue law requires genuine competitive bidding; a preset nominal Government bid was invalid and could not be cured.

A statutory power to recover arrears by sale through public auction requires genuine competitive bidding; a predetermined Government bid of Re. 1 for a defaulter's immovable property was not a lawful auction sale and was invalid. The challenge was not barred by limitation or by the Revenue Jurisdiction Act because it asserted that no valid sale had occurred, rather than seeking to set aside an irregular sale. Prior notice of the proposed bid, waiver, and estoppel could not cure the absence of statutory authority, and purchasers from Government could acquire no better title than Government itself. The appeal succeeded for the three land parcels sold on the nominal bid, while the house sale remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a purchase of defaulter's immovable property by the Government at a predetermined nominal bid of Re. 1 amounted to a valid sale by public auction under the Bombay Land Revenue Code; (ii) whether the appellant's challenge was barred by limitation or by the bar on civil court jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act; (iii) whether notice to the defaulter, or the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, validated the sale.

Issue (i): Whether a purchase of defaulter's immovable property by the Government at a predetermined nominal bid of Re. 1 amounted to a valid sale by public auction under the Bombay Land Revenue Code.

Analysis: The statutory scheme authorised recovery of arrears by sale of the defaulter's right, title and interest through public auction. The Code contained no provision authorising forfeiture of property or a colourable purchase by Government at a fixed nominal price. A sale by auction contemplates competitive bidding to ascertain market value, and a prearranged Re. 1 purchase did not satisfy that requirement. The later rule permitting such a bid had no application to the impugned sales, and the Government resolutions had no statutory force.

Conclusion: The nominal-bid purchase was not a sale by public auction and was invalid; the challenge to the three land sales succeeded.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant's challenge was barred by limitation or by the bar on civil court jurisdiction under the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act.

Analysis: The suit was not one to set aside an existing sale on the ground of irregularity, but one asserting that no lawful sale had taken place at all. On that footing, the limitation provision for setting aside sales did not apply. Likewise, the jurisdictional bar in the Revenue Jurisdiction Act presupposed a valid sale whose irregularities were to be questioned, and the appealable order contemplated by the Code was not shown to exist in the present case.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation or by the statutory jurisdictional provisions.

Issue (iii): Whether notice to the defaulter, or the doctrines of waiver or estoppel, validated the sale.

Analysis: Prior notice that Government would bid Re. 1 did not cure the absence of statutory authority for such a transaction. Waiver could not dispense with the essential statutory condition of a public auction, and estoppel could not arise in the absence of a legal representation capable of founding it. The purchasers from Government could not acquire a better title than Government itself possessed.

Conclusion: Notice, waiver and estoppel did not validate the sales.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in relation to the three land parcels sold at the nominal Government bid, while the house sale remained undisturbed; costs were awarded only to the extent of partial success.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises recovery by sale through public auction, a predetermined nominal purchase by the Government is not a lawful auction sale unless the statute expressly permits that mode of sale.

---