Procedural compliance in revenue auctions: transfer set aside for failure to follow statutory notice, attachment and publicity requirements; compensation ordered.

Failure to comply with procedural requirements under the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886-including absence of effective personal or properly documented substituted service of demand notices, lack of proved attempts to attach and sell movables before estate sale, and inadequate publicity and witnessing of the auction-rendered the auction sale and transfer to the State unlawful and deprived proprietory rights without procedure prescribed by law; consequently the Board's order setting aside the sale was restored, the State's challenge dismissed, and the appellants entitled to deposited compensation with interest and restoration of possession as applicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the auction sale and transfer of the estate to the State (and consequent orders) were lawful and in conformity with the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886, having regard to service of notices, prior attempt to recover arrears by attachment and sale of movables, and adequacy of publicity for auction?

Analysis: The Board found that no proper notice of demand or sale was served on the landholders, attempts to attach and sell movables under Section 69 were not proved, and auction proceedings lacked required witnessing and publicity; accordingly it set aside the sale and directed restoration or payment of compensation. The High Court reversed those findings, holding notices and sale were in conformity with the Regulation. On independent examination of the record against Sections 69, 70, 72 and Rules 133, 134, 136, 136A, 141 and 155 of the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886 and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, it was found that (a) there was no evidence of effective personal service or properly documented substituted service as required by the Rules, (b) there was no reliable record of bona fide attempts to attach and sell moveables before resorting to sale of the estate as mandated by Section 70(1), and (c) there was insufficient proof that adequate publicity and genuine opportunity for public participation in the auction were made to secure best price. These defects meant the deprivation of proprietary rights occurred without compliance with the procedure prescribed by law and in breach of the requirement to secure best price by public auction; further, the High Court impermissibly reappraised and reversed the Board's factual findings without adequate basis.

Conclusion: The auction sale and subsequent transfer of the estate to the State were not in conformity with the Assam Land And Revenue Regulation, 1886; the Board's order setting aside the sale is restored and the State's writ appeal and petition are dismissed; the appellants are entitled to compensation deposited by the Indian Oil Corporation with interest and restoration of possession of the remaining land.

---