Defective revenue sale notice and mandatory procedure breach justified setting aside bought-in land proceedings and equitable restoration.

Revenue recovery proceedings were vitiated because the sale notice included dues not actually outstanding and the mandatory notice requirements under the Revenue Recovery Act were not complied with, making the bought-in land transaction unsustainable. Applying equitable restitution, the Court directed restoration of the land on payment of the admitted welfare fund liability with simple interest, but denied any claim to the usufructs enjoyed by the State during custody of the property. The result was that the sale was set aside and restoration was ordered on terms reflecting the lawful dues alone.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revenue sale and taking over of the petitioner's land as bought-in land was vitiated for want of proper notice and for clubbing amounts not actually due; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the land on payment of the admitted liability, with consequential denial of claim over usufructs and direction to pay interest.

Issue (i): Whether the revenue sale and taking over of the petitioner's land as bought-in land was vitiated for want of proper notice and for clubbing amounts not actually due.

Analysis: The sale was proceeded with on a notice that included arrears towards Abkari Workers Welfare Fund as well as sales tax, though the State later admitted that no sales tax dues were actually pending. The notice therefore did not correctly reflect the amount of public revenue due on land. The Court found that the mandatory notice requirements under the Revenue Recovery Act were not complied with and that the purchase was made on behalf of the State instead of the requisitioning authority. These defects amounted to a material irregularity and rendered the proceedings unsustainable.

Conclusion: The revenue recovery proceedings culminating in the taking over of the land as bought-in land were held to be vitiated.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the land on payment of the admitted liability, with consequential denial of claim over usufructs and direction to pay interest.

Analysis: The Court applied equitable principles of restitution and rescission, noting that the petitioner had sought return of the property soon after the sale and that the authorities themselves delayed disclosure of the correct dues. While the sale was invalid, the petitioner still owed the admitted liability towards the welfare fund, and the Court therefore balanced the equities by directing payment of the quantified amount with simple interest. The Court also held that the petitioner could not claim the usufructs received by the State during the period of custody of the land.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to restoration of the land on payment of the specified amount with interest, but was not entitled to the value of the usufructs.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded in substance, with the bought-in land proceedings set aside and restoration ordered on equitable terms after satisfaction of the admitted dues.

Ratio Decidendi: A revenue recovery sale is liable to be set aside where the notice does not correctly state the public revenue due and mandatory statutory procedure is not followed; in such a case, the Court may, in equity and restitution, direct restoration of the property on payment of the lawful dues.

---