The first respondent was the successful bidder in the revenue auction for a sum of Rs.
Factually the sale was companyfirmed on 21.11.1977.
As per section 202 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the balance of the bid amount has to be deposited within two months from the date of the auction or 15 days from the companyfirmation of sale, whichever is earlier.
Consequently the objection raised by the appellant was rejected and the auction sale was upheld.
He had defaulted in the payment of employers share of Provident Fund to a tune of Rs 2 .
After following the procedure, the properties belonging to the said Daulat Ram bearing Survey Nos.
Hence, the present appeal by special leave.
Against that, the first respondent herein preferred a further revision to the Revenue Minister, Government of Maharashtra and that Revision was accepted by an order dated 10.10.79.
183/4 and 228 situated in two different villages and measuring to an extent of 3.78 acres were brought to revenue sale for recovery of the said Provident Fund amount.
The objection of Banta Singh was ultimately thrown out and he is number before us and, therefore, we need number companysider that further.
Nagpur Division by order dated 26.6.1979.
Apart from the appellant, one Banta Singh claiming to be the legatee of Daulat Ram under a will also filed an objection.
The appellant, widow of the said Daulat Ram preferred an objection to the Revenue sale.
The first respondent deposited the 3/4th amount on 26.8.1977 which is admittedly beyond 2 months from the date of auction.
Aggrieved by that the appellant preferred a civil Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by a one line order.
As per the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 he deposited a sum of Rs.8625/ representing 25 per cent of the bid amount on the spot.
Dr. N.M. Ghatate, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant took us through all the orders of the authorities below and also the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, in particular, sections 202 and 203 of the Code and companytended that the order of the Additional Commissioner was firmly based on sections 202 and 203 and the Revisional order of the Government does number companytain any valid reason to upset the order of the Additional Commissioner.
The objection preferred by the appellant though number accepted by the Sub Divisional officer, Ramtek was accepted by Additional Commissioner.
34,500/ held on 27.6.1977.
Venkataswami, J. One Daulat Ram since dead whose wife is the appellant before us was the owner of M s Durga Prasad Saw Mills.
He also invited our attention to the interim orders passed by this Court at the time of admission of the special leave directing the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/ which was later invested in fixed deposit from time to time.
