Auction sale of property remains incomplete until approval, full payment and sale certificate issuance before eviction protection applies

A public auction of salt pans does not complete a transfer of property merely because the highest bid is accepted at auction; under the applicable rules, transfer depends on bid approval, payment of the balance price, and issue of a sale certificate. Until those conditions are satisfied, ownership remains untransferred. Section 29 protection against eviction applies only where the property has already been transferred under the Act, so a person in possession cannot claim that statutory safeguard before completion of transfer. On the facts stated, the eviction challenge failed because no completed transfer had occurred and the section 29 protection had not arisen.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction held for the salt pans amounted to a completed transfer of property under section 20 and the relevant rules, and (ii) whether, in the absence of such transfer, the appellants could claim protection from eviction under section 29 of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the auction held for the salt pans amounted to a completed transfer of property under section 20 and the relevant rules.

Analysis: The power to transfer property out of the compensation pool by sale was subject to the statutory rules governing auction sales. Those rules required not merely declaration of the highest bid, but acceptance and approval of the bid, payment of the balance of the purchase money, and issue of a sale certificate. The sale conditions also made transfer of ownership contingent on full payment and issuance of the certificate. A highest bid at auction therefore did not by itself complete the sale or transfer the property.

Conclusion: No completed transfer had taken place on the facts found.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of such transfer, the appellants could claim protection from eviction under section 29 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 29 applies only where a person in lawful possession is in occupation of immovable property that has been transferred to another person under the Act. Since the auction had not yet resulted in a transfer, the statutory tenancy and the corresponding protection against eviction had not arisen. The question of lawful possession did not survive independently once transfer was absent.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the protection of section 29.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the eviction failed because the auction did not amount to a completed transfer, and without a transfer the appellants could not invoke the statutory safeguard against ejectment.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Act and its auction rules, a sale by public auction is not completed, and no transfer occurs, until the bid is approved, the purchase money is fully paid, and the sale certificate is issued; section 29 protection arises only after such transfer.

---