Concluded public auction cannot be reopened for a later higher offer absent fraud, collusion, illegality, or material irregularity.

A concluded public auction, once duly notified, confirmed and followed by execution of the sale deed, cannot be reopened merely because a later third-party offer is higher. The Court found no fraud, collusion, material irregularity or illegality in the auction process, and held that strangers who never participated in the auction could not challenge the completed sale or seek re-auction on a belated enhanced valuation. The relevant benchmark was the value at the time of auction, not a later appreciation after years. The re-auction direction was therefore unsustainable, the confirmed auction purchase remained undisturbed, and the original judgment restoring the sale was revived.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-auction directed by the High Court could be sustained when the original public auction had been duly conducted, the highest bid had been accepted and confirmed, the sale deed had been executed, and the challenge was raised later by persons who had not participated in the auction.

Analysis: The auction was conducted after public notice, 45 bidders participated, and the appellant emerged as the highest bidder. The sale was thereafter confirmed, the balance consideration was paid, and the sale deed was executed. No finding of fraud, collusion, material irregularity, or illegality in the auction process was recorded. The later objectors had not participated in the auction and had not submitted any bid. A subsequent offer of a higher amount, made after the auction was over, could not by itself justify unsettling a concluded sale. The relevant consideration was the value at the time of auction, not the enhanced value after the passage of years. The challenge was therefore not maintainable at the instance of strangers to the auction and could not be converted into a basis for ordering re-auction merely on the ground of a later perceived higher valuation.

Conclusion: The direction for re-auction was unsustainable, and the appellant's confirmed auction purchase could not be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's order was set aside and the original judgment restoring the appellant's auction sale was revived, with only an additional payment directed in favour of the temple trust.

Ratio Decidendi: A concluded public auction, duly confirmed and followed by execution of the sale deed, cannot be reopened merely because a third party later offers a higher price, unless fraud, collusion, illegality, or material irregularity in the auction process is established.

---