Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The respondents called for application for the sale of 11,245 sq.ft. of land in site No.2B at Sowripalayam Non-Housing Scheme situate at Coimbatore. As per the notification, the sale has to be conducted in the form of sealed tender cum open auction in April,2005. The upset price was fixed at Rs.46,10,500/- and every tenderer was directed to deposit 2% of the upset price as Earnest Money Deposit. There is a further condition that when the tenders are opened, the highest bid will be treated as upset price and public auction will be conducted. It is also a condition that only persons who presented the tender forms are permitted to participate in the public auction. The person who would offer highest price in public auction will be confirmed to be the highest bidder and on such confirmation, 15% of the highest bid amount has to be deposited on the very same day apart from the earnest money deposit. After getting the Board's approval, confirmation will be sent to the highest bidder and on receipt of such confirmation, within three weeks 35% of the bid amount has to be paid by the allottee and the balance 50% will be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of confirmation. While paying the balance 50%, the 2% earnest money deposit amount will be adjusted.

3(c). The only point raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is that while at the time of confirming the offer of the petitioner for sale, there was some variation in the upset price, and that was not brought to the notice of the Sale Confirmation Committee and it is in the interest of revenue of the respondents, the confirmed sale has to be cancelled. The said difference in upset price came to limelight only at the time of subsequent review made by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it was found that the upset price was not updated for the year 2005-2006 and therefore, in order to avoid any loss of revenue, the impugned order of cancellation came to be passed.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent Board would submit that when the upset price fixed at the time of auction was made on the basis of wrong information, the same should be treated as a mistake and such mistake cannot confer any right on the petitioner over the property. It is his submission that while fixing the upset price, it was not brought to the notice of the Committee regarding the actual upset price which should have been Rs.66,15,451/- as claimed by one of the highest bidders Thiru.Thangavel during September,2004 and therefore, fixation of upset price and the auction effected at Rs.54,65,000/- on 19.08.2005 are mistakes and therefore, immediately after the mistakes were found, the order of confirmation given to the petitioner was cancelled.

9. A perusal of the file produced by the Housing Board shows that in respect of the same property, on an earlier occasion when the same was brought for sale by public auction in September, 2004, one Thangavel had offered to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.66,15,451/-, however, that offer was rejected for non-remittance of 15% of the bid amount, which is one of the conditions for acceptance of the offer.

10. On facts and on perusal of the file, it is seen that in September,2004, the upset price was fixed at Rs.66,15,451/- in favour of Thangavel, which transaction could not be materialised due to various facts including non-remittance of bid amount and also subsequent case filed, but, instead of fixing the upset price at Rs.66,15,451/- in the auction sale in which the petitioner has participated on 19.08.2005, the upset price was fixed at Rs.46,15,786/-, based on the amount quoted by the petitioner in his tender. The said upset price of Rs.46,15,786/- was fixed in the year 2004 and as there was appreciation of value in the subsequent years, viz., 2005 and 2006, the upset price ought to have been increased and refixed. However, what was fixed in 2003-2004 as upset price at the rate of Rs.46,15,786/- was fixed in 2005-2006 also and such an anomaly made the Managing Director of the respondent Board to take a decision to cancel the confirmation of sale made in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate General, on perusal of the file, there is no suspicion that the impugned cancellation order is due to any other reason.