Order XXI Rule 90 CPC provisions don't mandatorily apply to Article 226 writ proceedings, SC rules

SC held that Order XXI Rule 90 CPC provisions do not mandatorily apply to Article 226 writ proceedings. HC exercising constitutional jurisdiction has plenary powers and cannot be compelled to follow CPC procedures due to Section 141. Court distinguished between auction sales under CPC versus state revenue enactments, noting different sanctity levels. Regarding Maharashtra Land Revenue Code Section 247 appeals, respondent no. 6 lacked standing under Section 210(1) as neither property owner nor title holder. Court applied principle that writ should not issue if it revives illegal orders. Appeal partially allowed with direction for appellant to deposit Rs. 4 crores with respondent within six months.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Maharashtra to decide the appeals filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution:

The court examined whether the principles enshrined in Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) should be applied to writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant argued that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 90 should apply, meaning that merely establishing a material irregularity or fraud is insufficient to set aside an auction sale unless it results in substantial injury to the aggrieved party.

The court distinguished between auction sales conducted by the executing court under the CPC and those conducted by the State through its revenue authorities. It noted that the CPC's provisions do not apply to writ petitions under Article 226, except for some principles like res judicata and delay and laches. The court emphasized that the writ court exercises its own procedures and is not compelled to follow the CPC.

The court concluded that applying the principles of Order XXI Rule 90 to writ proceedings would be hazardous, especially when the legality, validity, and propriety of the auction sale conducted by the State are questioned on the grounds of mala fides, undue favor, and gross violation of mandatory provisions of law. The court held that the primary consideration for the writ court should be the fairness and transparency of the auction process, not the dual conditions of material irregularity and substantial injury as stipulated in Order XXI Rule 90.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Maharashtra to decide the appeals filed under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966:

The appellant contended that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeals filed by the respondent under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, as there was a remedy available under Section 210 of the same code. The court noted that the remedy under Section 210 was rendered illusory because the sale was finalized by the Tahsildar much before the confirmation by the Collector, and the sale certificate was issued, and possession was handed over to the appellant.

The court observed that Section 210(1) provides that an application to set aside the sale can be made by the owner of the property or someone holding an interest therein by virtue of a title acquired before the sale. However, the respondent (ARCIL) did not fall within these categories. The court further noted that once the sale certificate is issued, the remedy falls under Section 247, not Section 210.

The court concluded that even if the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction, the common order passed by the Additional Commissioner allowing the appeals and remanding the matter back to the authority concerned should not be disturbed. Quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner would revive the illegal order passed by the Additional Collector confirming the sale, which would be against the principles of justice.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, holding that no interference was warranted. However, to do substantial justice, the court directed the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- with ARCIL within six months to save its industrial unit set up on the subject land. If the appellant fails to deposit the amount, the competent authorities will take over the possession of the entire unit and land and put it up for fresh auction. The court also clarified that if the appellant deposits the requisite amount, the pending contempt proceedings before the High Court of Bombay will stand terminated.

---