The legality of an auction sale conducted by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Additional Collector, which was later contested on the grounds of statutory violations under the Revenue Code. The High Court found the auction process to be illegal and set it aside. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision but provided the appellant an opportunity to retain the property by depositing a specified sum to settle liabilities.

Points of Consideration

1. Legality of Auction Sale: Whether the auction sale by the Tahsildar and its confirmation by the Additional Collector violated statutory provisions of the Revenue Code.
2. Setting Aside the Auction: Whether the auction sale could be annulled due to material irregularity or fraud.
3. Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner: Whether the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Maharashtra, rightly set aside the auction sale and ordered a fresh consideration.
4. High Court’s Confirmation: Whether the High Court correctly upheld the Additional Commissioner’s decision.
5. Bona Fide Purchaser: Whether the appellant was a bona fide purchaser for value in the auction sale.
6. Irreparable Loss: Whether the appellant would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the possession of the property was taken away.

Analysis

1. Violation of Statutory Provisions: The auction sale conducted by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Additional Collector was in violation of Sections 193 and 194 of the Revenue Code.
2. Material Irregularity and Fraud: The auction was found to be conducted with significant irregularities, making the sale illegal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Additional Commissioner: The Additional Commissioner acted within his jurisdiction in setting aside the auction sale.
4. High Court's Role: The High Court’s decision to dismiss the writ petitions and uphold the Additional Commissioner’s order was justified.
5. Appellant’s Status: The appellant was not considered a bona fide purchaser due to awareness of pending litigations and objections.
6. Substantial Justice: The appellant's investment in an industrial unit on the property was acknowledged, and a solution was proposed to avoid irreparable loss.

Conclusion

• The appeals were partly allowed, affirming the High Court's decision but giving the appellant a chance to retain the property by depositing Rs. 4,00,00,000 with ARCIL.
• Failure to deposit the amount within six months would result in further orders, including the potential repossession and auctioning of the property.
• The appellant’s compliance with the deposit requirement would terminate pending contempt proceedings.

Final Order

• Appeals allowed in part, with instructions for the appellant to deposit Rs. 4,00,00,000 within six months.
• Pending applications disposed of.
• No order as to costs.