The property was auctioned by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hisar in which the respondent was the highest bidder, who later on claimed that he is a bonafide purchaser and was in possession as owner of the suit land.
The appellant-Municipal Committee had passed a resolution to get the sale deed of the auctioned property executed and registered, however, the same was not executed.
It was argued by the appellant that the possession of the respondent was said to be an illegal possession since the same was not approved by the State government. The appellant-committee had argued that mere fact that the plaintiff was the highest bidder would not confer any equitable and legal right to him and it shall be only after the confirmation of sale and the letter accepting the bid is issued that the respondent could claim any enforceable right.
Moreover, the appellant also argued that the approval of sale of the property by public auction itself does not amount to confirmation of the auction and therefore, in the absence of confirmation of sale by the State, the respondent cannot get any right over the property.
On the other hand, the respondent argued that once he has been found to be the highest bidder and the sale has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, he can rightfully claim his title and possession on the said property.
In this regard, the respondent relied upon an inter-departmental communication to solidify his contention of claim of the property, wherein the Deputy Commissioner had sought the government’s response to affirm the sale deed.
Source: Barandbench
