TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Auction Sale Deemed Void Due to Authority Delegation</h1> <h3>Puttakamaiah Versus State of Karnataka and others</h3> Puttakamaiah Versus State of Karnataka and others - 1990 AIR 79 Issues:Tenability of auction sale proceedings by Tahasildar in execution of Civil Court decree.Analysis:The judgment in question dealt with the validity of auction sale proceedings conducted by the Tahasildar concerning properties subject to a Civil Court decree. The petitioner, a judgment-debtor under the decree obtained by the 7th respondent, challenged the auction proceedings. The key issue raised was the competence of the Tahasildar to conduct the auction sale as part of executing the decree, which had been sent to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 54 mandates that the execution of such decrees should be carried out by the Deputy Commissioner or a gazetted Assistant of the Collector. The provision allows for delegation by the Deputy Commissioner to his Gazetted Assistant but does not permit further delegation beyond that point.The judgment highlighted the legal principle that a delegate cannot further delegate tasks entrusted to them, as per the maxim 'Delegatus non delegare.' In this case, the Assistant Commissioner, delegated by the Deputy Commissioner to execute the decree, had passed on the task to the Tahsildar, constituting an impermissible chain of delegation. Consequently, the actions taken by the Tahsildar in executing the Civil Court decree were deemed void and lacking jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Tahsildar's actions, as detailed in Annexure 'B,' were legally flawed and required to be quashed.The Government Pleader argued that all parties, including the petitioner, had concurred with the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar. However, the court clarified that mere acquiescence by parties in actions beyond the authority vested in an individual does not validate those actions. Therefore, the petitioner's acquiescence did not confer competence on the Tahsildar to conduct the auction proceedings. The court rejected the argument that the petitioner's lack of protest against the proceedings should prevent interference with the Tahsildar's actions.Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the auction proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar and all subsequent orders by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. The matter was directed to return to the Deputy Commissioner for appropriate disposal in accordance with the law, with a stipulated timeline for resolution. The judgment concluded by emphasizing that the acquiescence of the petitioner and other parties did not legitimize the actions taken by the Tahsildar, and the writ petition was allowed with no costs incurred.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
