Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. He further submits that since it is a public sale, the sale consideration is the market value of the property and there was no jurisdiction with respondent no.2 to reassess the market value of the property inasmuch as in the case of public sale, the market value mentioned in the sale certificate is the market value of the property. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of V.N. Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others, (2009) 7 SCC 438 and the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ballyfabs International Limited Vs. The State of West Bengal and Others in W.P.A. No.7006 of 2020 decided on 22.04.2022.

44. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of Apex court in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra) relied upon by Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner to contend that the sale contemplated under Rule 8 (5) (b) by tender is a public sale and consideration set forth in the sale certificate and in the instrument of sale is excluded from the jurisdiction of the Collector to draw any proceeding under Section 47-A (3) since there is no fraudulent intention to evade the proper stamp duty.

45. In the V.N. Devadoss case, the Apex court was considering a fact situation where the appellant V.N. Devadoss in order to rehabilitate the sick company decided to dispose of the land by statutory authority such as the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AIFR) under the Sick Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1985') by forming an Asset Sales Committee (ASC) consisting of members such as representatives of IDBI, Debenture Holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. The ASC in compliance with the guidelines issued by the statutory authorities (BIFR & AIFR), published in the newspaper about its proposal to sell the land and invited tenders in sealed covers from interested persons. In the said sale, the appellant submitted his tender along with others and the appellant's offer of Rs.24,34,40,000/- being the highest was accepted by the ASC as well as by the statutory authorities. Consequently, the company was granted permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.

49. The Calcutta High Court also in the case of Ballyfabs (supra) applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court held that a sale conducted by the Authorized Officer under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is an open market sale and thus, is excluded from the scrutiny under Section 47-A of the Act, 1899 subject to conditions laid down in paragraph 16 (1) & (2) of the said judgement.

50. In the light of the aforesaid principle, this Court proceeds to analyse the facts of the present case to ascertain whether the aforesaid two judgements i.e. judgement of Apex Court in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra) & judgement of Calcutta High Court in the case of Ballyfabs (supra) relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would come to the aid of the petitioner.