Rule 66 private sale procedure prevails over public-auction time limits; outsiders without legal interest lack locus standi.

Persons who were neither defaulters nor purchasers lacked locus standi to challenge a private sale completed under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule, because the negotiated-sale procedure is self-contained and does not confer rights on outsiders without a legal interest in the property. The thirty-day rule for keeping a sale open applies to public-auction sales, not to a sale expressly authorised and completed under Rule 66. Where the defaulter acted within the period fixed in the certificate and the consideration was deposited and confirmed in accordance with the rule, the sale confirmation remained valid and could not be set aside on the thirty-day ground.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons who were neither defaulters nor purchasers had locus standi to maintain an appeal under the recovery rules against a private sale completed under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule; (ii) Whether the confirmation of sale by the Tax Recovery Officer was invalid because it was not kept open for thirty days and could be set aside on that basis.

Issue (i): Whether persons who were neither defaulters nor purchasers had locus standi to maintain an appeal under the recovery rules against a private sale completed under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule.

Analysis: Rule 66 authorises a defaulter, on permission of the Tax Recovery Officer, to conclude a private sale within the period fixed in the certificate, with the sale proceeds to be paid to the officer and the sale becoming absolute only on confirmation. The statutory scheme treats this as a distinct mode from a public auction. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, was also relied upon to note that a mere contract for sale does not by itself create an interest in the property. On the facts, the objectors had not acquired any legal interest in the property and had not participated as parties with a recognised stake in the permitted negotiation.

Conclusion: The objection was not maintainable and the appeal filed by such persons was without locus standi.

Issue (ii): Whether the confirmation of sale by the Tax Recovery Officer was invalid because it was not kept open for thirty days and could be set aside on that basis.

Analysis: The thirty-day requirement was held to relate to the setting aside of a sale in the context of a public auction and not to a sale expressly authorised under Rule 66. The words authorising the defaulter to make a proposed mortgage, lease or sale, coupled with the phrase notwithstanding anything contained in the Schedule, make the negotiated-sale procedure self-contained. Since the defaulter completed the sale within the period specified in the certificate and the consideration was deposited and confirmed in accordance with the rule, the appellate authority had misapplied the scheme by importing the public-auction time-limit into a negotiated sale.

Conclusion: The confirmation of sale was valid and could not be set aside on the thirty-day ground.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was quashed, and the private sale confirmed by the Tax Recovery Officer was restored, leaving the petitioners entitled to the benefit of the completed transaction.

Ratio Decidendi: A sale of attached immovable property expressly authorised and completed under Rule 66 of the Second Schedule is governed by that self-contained procedure, and persons who acquire no legal interest in the property lack locus standi to challenge such a sale as if it were a public-auction sale.

---