Marketability of court-directed auction sale cannot be defeated by bare land-law notices without proof of a live encumbrance.

A bare notice or unsupported assertion of possible proceedings under the land laws was insufficient to show a legal impediment affecting marketability of property sold under a final court-directed sale. The Court held that, where the sale notice was on an "as is where is basis," the purchaser had to produce the underlying order, notification, record, or proof of any live encumbrance; mere reference to Section 6(3) and Section 57 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 did not create a cloud on title. The marketability challenge failed, and only a short final opportunity to pay the balance was granted, failing which forfeiture would operate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the auction purchaser established any legal impediment affecting the marketability of the land so as to justify extension of time for payment of the balance sale consideration.

Analysis: The land had been ordered to be sold by the Supreme Court and the sale notice had been issued on an "as is where is basis". The only material relied on by the purchaser was two notices issued by the Sub-Divisional Land and Land Reforms Officer, but no supporting records, notification, order under the land statute, or land records showing any subsisting proceeding or encumbrance were produced. The Court held that mere reference to Section 6(3) and Section 57 of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953, without proof of any live proceeding or relevant record, could not create a doubt about marketability. The Court further held that the principle governing Section 6(3) did not permit the State to rely on subsequent events, and that no basis existed to question the sale in the face of the finality of the Supreme Court's direction and the absence of any pending land acquisition or land reforms proceeding.

Conclusion: The plea challenging marketability was rejected and the application failed, though the purchaser was granted one week to pay the balance dues, failing which the earlier forfeiture consequence would operate.

Final Conclusion: The sale in favour of the auction purchaser was upheld as free from the asserted legal cloud, and the Court declined to modify the sale process on the ground urged, while granting only a short final opportunity to complete payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A bare notice or unsupported assertion of possible proceedings under the land laws, without the underlying order, notification, or record, is insufficient to displace the marketability of property sold under a final court-directed sale, and subsequent events cannot be used to defeat the concluded statutory position.

---