Allowed

Vallurupalli Tarakeswar and another v. Canara Bank and 3 others

Telangana HC11 Jul 2022WP/8192/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Appellate Tribunal's order directing rectification of an auction sale certificate. The Court held the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the applicable Acts, violated natural justice by improper service, and ignored limitation bars. The consequential Rectification Deed was also set aside.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order dated 22.02.2021 of the Appellate Tribunal and the consequential Rectification Deed dated 24.02.2021 set aside.

Vallurupalli Tarakeswar and another Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE S' A N GA NA ; ;" " i L*i;'iffi..[f :fi

¶2

#31liJi5^ii5Xi,B,fi,j,,',??,i,,j,

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

Between:

¶5

uusilcE UJJAL BHU,AN THE HONOURABLE THE ffi THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRt7P TITION No; 81920F2 22

¶6

¶7

2 fl if'.;,.:titr:iflr",i#t,J,:n!'"i#"qx;Jli,rtii,f,r5i^j"? 5ijflf#r"'#;{lai,J"#itr,B'.ytr#:!,flys:d3:ri":i5,,?!r*?ii

¶8

AND

¶9

..,PET'TIONERS

¶10

Canara Bank, Rep. byits Manager, Abids Branch, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Recovery Officer_1 , Debt Recovery Tribunat _i, Abids, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Recove ry Officer_2, Debt Recovery Tribunal _1, Abids, Hyderabad. l',4/s Laxmi GanaoiLaxmi Ganaoi

¶13

-i;ql,l?fr l',4/s Laxmi GanaoiLaxmi Ganaoi f^{g.*:"#.tH,[Hffi} fi [ii#',Tx,,x#?JBi]s",ji"f^,,"T,[:

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under Articre 226- of the constitution. of rndia praying that in the ;Lfft?j:::,:,:ft,.[jn"^{anioavitJirli"in"lJi,,,nthe Hish} court may be Appelrare i r, u,, t,,u Tribunar, o i i,iit ; i Korkara, i#i#; in il! app"rirv"r ::,?!". [T i [?;"? "#zor,, !lj,J "T Ti i : t:t I [;; l; No. 5/20.1e in M.p. No. zonz.ots-i"n-;.p."rrj.l idriiorrin dated. o.A. 22t02/2021 No. 1785/1eee in R.Aon the fite of Debt Recoverv_Tribunat _ | , H;;;r;;;; and as weil as consequentiat Rectificatron Deed Beaiing Document i\2.'trq6i,oz1 , dated. 2ozrzozt u, illegar' arbitrary' marafide, opposed.to taw ano "piincipres consequently set-aside the order in Appeal r.r..-eii 2021 , daled. of naturai z2tobl2oz.t justice andana the consequentiar Rectification o""oTi"*irg N'o."448sr2021, dated. 24r02t2021 as itlegal in the interests or lusrlce.

¶16

.A, N^o: 1 OF²⁰²² t in^{the clrcums} tances^stated Petition^Und er^{Section1 51 CPC} of the Petltion'^PraYing the^thaHig h Court^may nal,^{be Pleased toKolkatatn} in the end^a ffidavit^t he^{order filedP} in assed^suPPortbY the2lo itzozt Debt^Recoveryina AN o.5l2OApPe^llate 19ⁱⁿ bt^{TribuM.P'RecoveryNo} 207 Tribunal¹²⁰¹⁹ suspApPe al No .3^{ot 2021} ' in dated.2^{OS. No} 1 785/1999^o nth e file^{of de} in^R.P. No. $712002 tiaI Rectificat^{ion DeedBearing No 44 8512021'} HYderabad 212021^andP ending consequen^disPo sal^{of the wrt} t^petition' dat^ed.2410

¶17

A.^o

¶18

,H'r:tffi-ffi

¶19

3k:.$h'lllx'iH?]q'f ''?$t'i:"rirJ1??"':'::::':'

¶20

AND :::f '

¶21

.*kfil3ltsi,;tr''l;.f,ll'i3rr'Shti'i'uT'i'18"iffi

¶22

L#Hiffi

¶23

2.Vaurupailg,,,l;,Y:;.Y;^Ifl^{'A::',HJ5'irlg:i#;:::i'5?fl::-""'?} fuPg;,fifl%,''*ol^usP'

¶24

3' Canara^{Bank, Rep. by its lr/lanager,Abids Branch, Hyderabad.}

¶25

4.The^{Recoveryofficer-1 , Debt Recovery Tribunar-1 , Abids'Hyderabad'}

¶26

5 The^{RecoveryOfficer-2'Debt RecoveryTribunal -l' Abids'Hyderabad'} ...RESPONDENTS

¶27

that^{in the circumstance's stated} Petition^{Under Section15]} 'CPC-Pflng ,;:::"1,1'SXlxJl'81,,i:.,Si[fr ,li[l;sl*:t;[iNi:hcjs[iJ,'&Bl";;""

¶28

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI'K'V'BHANUPRASAD}

¶29

counsel^{for the Respondent No'1: SRI'SUNIL B'GANU}

¶30

counsel for the^{Respondent Nos' a : SRI'HEMENDRANATHREDDY}

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

¶33

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTI^{CEUJJAL BHIIYAN} AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI^NANDA

¶34

WRIT PETITIoN No.8192 OF²⁰²²

¶35

ORDER:^(Pet the Hon'ble^theChieJ J^{sticeUjjalBhuuan)}

¶36

Heard Mr. K.V.Bhanu Prasad,^{learned Senior Counsel} for the petitioners and Mr.^{Hemendranath Reddy, learned} Senior Counsel for respondent^{No.4.Also heard Mr. Sunil B'} Ganu, learned counsel^{for respondent No. 1, CanaraBank'}

¶37

2, By filing this petition under^{Article 226 ofthe} Constitution ol India^{petitioners seekquashing of orderdated} 22.02.2021 passed by the^{DebtsRecoveryAppellate Tribunal} at Kolkata in Appeal^{No.3 of 2O2las well as the consequential} Rectification Deed dated 24.O2.2021.

¶38

Case of the petitioners^{as projectedin the affudavitis} that they are husband and^{wife. They togetherwith} respondent No.4 - M/s.Laxmi^{Ganapathi PaperMills Limited} had purchased the subject^{property in an auction saleat} Hyderabad eighteen^{years ago. Managing Director of} respondent No.4 is also^{a close relation of the petitionerswho} are non resident Indians^{residing at Boston, USA.}

¶39

¶40

It is stated that there are serious disputes within the family. Respondent No.4 has been filing one case after the other to cause loss to the petitioners. It is also stated that petitioners have 2O0o square yards of land at Hyderabad. Behind the petitioners, land is the plot of land of respondent No'4 measuring r5s7 square yards. on the right side is the plot of land of the brother_in_law of t1.e first petitioner who is the brother of the second pelitioner measuring IOOO square yards.

¶41

It is further stated that in the common sale certificate issued by respondent No.2 i.e., Recovery Oflrcer_I, Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad portion of land earmarked for respondent No.4 was much more than the petitioners. However, because of his greed and to wreak vengeance on the petitioners respondent No.4 has obtained orders prejudicial to the petitioners from municipal and revenue authorities behind the back of the petitioners.

¶42

Fifteen years after issuance of the sale certificate, respondent No.4 made an appiication on 17.10.201g before respondent No.2 for rectilication of boundaries stating that there is 30 feet wide road on the southern side; road on the

¶43

=----

¶44

western side is only 8O feet and not 72O feet. In the sale certificate, it was clearly mentioned that it was only a passage to the subject land; not road.

¶45

Respondent No.2 passed an order rejecting the application of respondent No.4 for rectification of boundaries. According to respondent No.2, he was not vested with powers under the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly, 'the Act' hereinafter) for rectification of boundaries of sale certificate issued in the year 2004.

¶46

Aggrieved by the same respondent No.4 Iiled appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, being R.A.No.S o{ 2019. However the same was also dismissed on t6.o1.2020

¶47

Against the aforesaid order respondent No.4 preferred appeal before the Debts Recovery Appeilate Tribunal at Kolkata (briefly, Appellate Tribunal' hereinafter) which was registered as Appeal No.3 of 2021. Appellate Tribunal vide the order dated 22.02.2021 allowed the said appeal. Respondent No.4 was directed to obtain a copy of the draft Rectification Deed fiied before the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to submit the same before the Recovery Officer-I, Debts Recovery

/a-

-1

Tribunal-I, Hyderabad i.e., respondent No.2 r.t,ho u,as directed to issue the Rectification Deed as per the copy of draft Rectification Deed filed before Appellate Tribunal.

¶52

Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed

¶53

This Court by order dated 15.02.2O22had issued notice and in the meanwhile stayed the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal.

¶54

Respondent No.4 has filed counter affidavit. It is stated that K.Gowthama Siddhardhudu is the Managing Director of respondent No.4 which is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 20i3.

¶55

Petitioners and respondent No.4 had jointly purchased the subject property in an auction sale conducted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 has contended that Second Schedule of the Act relates only to recovery of tax dues and in the context of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (briefly,^,1993 Act, hereinafter) for recovery of the dues under the 1993 Act, the Schedule does not state anyrvhere that the Recoverv Officer may not entertain a Rectification Deed. Therefore the stand taken bv

¶56

the Recovery Officer while rejecting the^{applicationof} respondent No.4 for rectification^{is untenable.That apart, in} an auction sale the vendor^{and the vendee are always} competent to enter into a^{Rectification Deed to correct any} mistakes that may^{have occurredin the original deed'}

¶57

Respondent No.4^{has contended that just like the} petitioners, the Recovery^{Officeras well as the DebtsRecovery} Tribunal-I at^{Hyderabad (Tribunai)did not deal with the} principal contention of^{respondent No'4 that there was a 30} feet wide road abutting^{the subject iand for which the sale} certificate was^{required tobe rectifiedMerelybecause} petitioners chose not to^{participatein the proceedingsbefore} the Appeliate^{Tribunal, itcannot be construed that the} impugned^{order passedby the Appellate Tribunalwaspassed} behind the^{back of the petitioners' The errors which had} crept-in in^{the sale certificate couldnot have been allowedto} remain^{on record for} PerPetuitY'

¶58

Respondent^{No.4 thereforeseeks dismissal of the wrtt} petition

¶59

Petitioners^{have filed reply affidavit to the counter} afiidavit^{filed by respondentNo 4At the outset, it is stated}

¶60

¶61

()

¶62

that petitioners were not made parties either before the Tribunal or before the Appellate Tribunal. While reluting the contention of respondent No.4 as to the existence of the 30 feet wide road, petitioners have stated that the electrifying speed at which the Rectification Deed was made on 24.02.2021 following the order of the Appellate Tribunal on 22.O2.2O2I itself is an indication as to ho^, respondent No.4 is trying to change the schedule of the subject land.

¶63

Learned counsei for the petitioners submits that the Appellate Tribunal committed a manifest error in directing rectification of the sale deed after 1g long years. The manner in which the order was passed by the Appellate Tribunal raises serious questions. Only Canara Bank was made a respondent in the appeal. petitioners were not arrayed as respondents despite the fact that petitioners \vere also auction purchasers along with respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 projected itself as lhe sole purchaser. There is no provision under Schedule-ll of the Act for carrying out such rectification. As a matter of fact, Section 26 of the 1993 Act clearly says that no objection to the saie certificate on anv other ground shall be entertained by the Recovery Officer. Recovery Officer as weil as the Tribunal were fully justified in

¶64

¶65

rejecting the prayer of respondent No.4 for rectilication of the sale deed. That being the position, impugned order dated 22.O2.2O2I passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the consequential Rectification Deed dated 24.O2.2021 should be set aside and quashed.

¶66

Canara Bank i.e., respondent No.l has not filed any affidavit. Learned counsel for the Canara Bank submits that the dispute is between the petitioners and respondent No.4 in which Canara Bank has got no role to play. The auction took place on 'as is where is basis'. post auction. the Sale Certificate was issued which was also registered.

¶67

Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that when it came to the notice of respondent No.4 that the boundary of the subject land was required to be rectified, it had filed an application for rectification. Unfortunately the Recovery Officer as well as the Tribunal failed to consider the prayer of respondent No.4 in the correct perspective for which respondent No.4 had to approach the Appellate Tribunal. He submits that there is no error or infirmitSr in the view taken by the |ppellate Tribunal.

¶68

¶69

Rule 2 1 of the Income Tax (Certificate I'roceedings) Rules, 1962 empowers a Recovery Officer to carry out rectification of schedule of auctioned land. He thercfore seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶70

21 . Submissions made by learned counsel for Lhe parties have received the due consideration of the Court

¶71

From the materials on record, the following facts are discernible.

¶72

Respondent No.1/Canara Bank had hled an application under Section 19 of the 1993 Act before the Tribunal which was registered as O.A.No.17B5 of 1999 for recovery of outstanding dues from the borrowers who had defaulted in repayment of loan. Tribunal ailowed O.A.No.1785 of 1999 and a recovery certificate dated 30.04.20O2 r.l,as issued for recover)/ of Rs.28,09, 174.00 with future interest etc. The recovery certificate was |iled before the Recovery Officer for initiating recovery proceedings against the certificate clebtors. As the certificate debtors failed to liquidate the certificate amount, the mortgaged schedule property was put to auction sale. The details of the schedule property are as under:

¶73

¶74

Land admeasuring Ac.1.35 guntas forming^part of Sy.No.90/2 situated at Gachiborvli, under Gram Panchayat, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District^and bounded by:

¶75

Ea st Land and Building of M/s. IAE Co South Portion of Survey No.90/2 West Kacha Rasta & Survey No.92 Nortil Hyderabad - Lingampally Road.

¶76

24 . In the auction sale held on 2I .O4.2OO4,^{respondentNo.4} and the petitioners were declared as successful^{bidders for an} amount of Rs.2,85,00,000.00. Thereafter confirmation^{of sale} was issued on 24.O5.2OO4. Recovery Officer o1 23.O4.2OO4 had requested the revenue authorities^{for demarcation of the} schedule property, whereafter the revenue^authorities submitted demarcation report along with sketch map^on 18.05.2004. Thereafter the Sale Certificate bearing^{No.5907 of} 2004 was registered before the Joint Sub-Registrar-1,^Ranga Reddy District.

¶77

Fifteen years thereafter Miscellaneous^{Petition No.207 of} 2019 was filed by respondent No.4 before^{respondentNo.2for} rectification of the boundary of the schedule^{property recorded} in the Sale Certificate. In the^{said miscellaneouspetition, the} following^{prayer wasmade:}

¶78

a) The measurement of^{length of all plots alongwith} 30 feet road on^{Westernboundary in the plan in} the Registered Certificate^{of Sale No.5907/2004}

dated 24.O5.2004, is to be read as 444 feet instead of 429 feet,

¶83

bl The^q,idth of the road on Western side of the plots in the Plan is to be read as 80 feet $,icie road Ieading to G.P.R.A Quarters instead of 120 feet wide road leading to G.P.R.A Quarters.

¶84

Respondent No.1 informed the Recovery Officer that the following parties were the joint successful auction purchasers:

¶85

a) M/s. Laxmi Ganapathi Paper Mills Limited, Rep. by its M.D. Shri K. S. Go&tham

¶86

b) Paladugu Venkata Lakshmi, W/o Nageswara Rao

¶87

c) Gottipati Chandrasekhar, S/o Venkateswara Rao

¶88

d) Vallurupalli Tarakeswar, S/o late Sri Rama Murthy

¶89

Respondent No. 1 also stated that in the valuation report, the schedule property was mentioned as "the propertv is situated at Gachibowli and the plot of land reported to be admeasuring Ac.1.35 guntas with western boundary as road and in the paper publication dated 18.03.2004 for auction it was mentioned as Kacha Rastha and Survey No.92". Further respondent No.1 clarified that it had never gi\ren the western boundary as 12O feet road and also did not mention the length as 429 feet.

¶90

Recovery Officer on due consideration declined to rectify the boundary of the schedule property as prayed for by respondent No.4 and rejected the prayer vide the order dated 19.11.2019.It was held as follows:

¶91

¶92

¶93

As seen from the above proceedings/ records the RC scheduled property was auctioned on 21 April, 2004 and basing on the demarcation report and sketch of the auctioned property submitted by the Mandal Survel,or, Serilingampally Mandal vide their ietter dated 18'h May 2004 and also on the basis of the memo filed by the Successful Auction Purchaser i.e., M/s.Laxmi Ganapathi Paper Mills Limited & others, the Certificate of Sale of the said property rvas issued by the then Recovery Officer vide Certilicate dated 24'h May 2004 and the said Sale Certilicate reflects that the Westera bouadary is shown as Compound Wall abutting 12O'Dambar Road Ieading to GPRA Quarters (Katcha Rasta & Sy. No.92) and further the said property was also divided into 7 (seven) different schedules with different boundaries and the property was registered as Court Sale Certificate No.5907/2004 in the Joint Sub Registrar-I, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

¶94

1 1. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the Recovery Officer is not vested with such power under Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, for rectification of boundary or dimension on the western side of^the petition scheduled property which is auctioned and^for which Certificate of Sale was issued in the^year 2004^arrd also on the fact that the said^{property was already} registered as Court SaIe Certifrcate^{No.5907/2004 in the} Joint Sub Registrar-I, Ranga^{ReddyDistrict,Hyderabad'}

¶95

28.1. From the above it is^{evident that both on meritas well} as on^{jurisdiction,RecoveryOfficer declined to entertain the} prayer of respondent^{No.4' Recovery Officer opinedthatthere} is no^{provisionunder Second Schedule to the IncomeTax Act'} 1961 for rectification^{of boundary of the auctionedproperty in} respect of^{whichCertificate of Sale was issued way back in the} year 2OO4,^{whereafter the samewas registered'}

¶96

Against^{theaforesaid order dated 19'11'2019-} ,/ respondent^{No.4 preferredappealbefore the Tribunal which}

¶97

¶98

¶99

was registered^{as RecoveryAppeal No'S of 20lg Tribunal vide} the order dated^{16.O1.2O2Odeclined to interfere$'ith the order} of the Recovery^{Ofhcer.It was held as follows:}

¶100

The^{Certif-tcateof Sale was issuedby the} then Ld. Recovery^{Oflicerin the year 2004The Appellant} kept quiet^{for more than 15 years'Since} -the^Appellant herein- had^{approachedthe Ld RecoveryOfficer for the} execution of^{ihe Rectification Deed in respectof the} U"".J".V/ai*.nsion^{on the Western side of the subject} piop".ty, which^{was soldand for which Certificare of Sale} ir"" i."r"a in^{the year 2004, which is after a lapse of 15} years, [-d. Recovery^{Officer in the order dated 19 11 2019} in Ui t'lo.ZOZ72019^{had observedand held thatthe} R."or"ry Officer^{is not vestedrvith suchporver under} Second Schedule^{to the Income Tax Act'}

¶101

Further, as can^{be seen from the sketches} of the subject^{property,which s'as soldafter brfurcating/} demarcating the intire^{extentof Ac.l 35 gurrtas into 7} schedules of^{properties, 4 properties formpart on thc} Western side out of rvhich^{schedule 1(a) propertl} comprising 2631^{sq.yds.,belongs to the Appellantherein-} and other 3^properties viz.,^{schedule 2(a) comprising of} 152 sq. yds., schedule 3 comprising of^{1000 sq.yds.' and} schedule 4 property comprising of 2000^{sq. yds., belong} to Smt. Paladugu Venkata Laxmi, Sri Gottipati Chandra Sekhar and Sri Vallurupalli Tarakeswar. Only the Appellant, who is the owner of one of the 4 properties in the Western side, has approached the Ld, Recovery Officer for the execution of the Rectification Deed and the owners of other 3 properties in the Western side are not parties to MP No.2O7 /2O 19. As such the said MP No.2O7 l2Ol9 filed by the Appellant for execution of Rectification Deed in respect of Certificate of Sale dated 24.O5.2OO4, is itself not maintainable.

¶102

During the course of arguments, the Appellant filed a Memo dated 02.01.2020 stating that the subject property, which is situated at Gachibowti Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, falls under the jurisdiction of DRT-II, Hyderabad and as such the instant Recovery Appeal may be transferred to DRT-ll, Hyderabad.

¶103

The subject property u,as sold bl. the then Recovery Officer and issued the Certificate ol Sale on 24.05.2004, at which time there was onl1. one DRT at Hyderabad and DRT,ll was not in existence. The DRT_ll has been established vide Notification c1a1ed 25.01.2017.

¶104

¶105

¶106

As stated supra, the Appellant herein had earlier filed MP No.45/2017 belore the then Ld. Recovery Officer of DRTI, Hyderabad on 15.05.2017 (after establishment of DRTII, Hyderabad) for execution of Rectiflcation Deed in respect of Northern boundary of schedule 1(b)^property in the Certificate of Sale dated 24.O5.2OO4 and got executed the said Rectification Deed. Thereafter, the appellant herein had filed MP No.2O7 l2Ol9 before the Ld. Recovery Ofhcer of the Tribunal, rvho had dismissed the said MP vide orders dated 19.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Recovery Officer, the Appcllant herein filed the present Recovery Appeal before the Tribunal on 20. 11.2019. After the matter^had been heard at length and at the final stage of the argurncnts, the Appellant had sought fo. the transler of the instant appeal to DRT-ll, Hyderabad on the ground of jurisdiction. The Appellant had not chosen to file his earlier application i.e., MP No.45l2017 before^DRT-lI, I{;lderabad and he got lavourable orders in the^said application from Ld. Recovery Officer of^DRT-I, Hyderabad. When the Appellant did not get favourable orders from the Ld. Recovery Officer of this Tribunalⁱⁿ his next application i.e., MP No.2O7 12019 and^sensing that he may not get favourable orders in the instant appeal, the Appellant is seeking for transfer of the^appeal to DRT-lI, Hyderabad, which is nothing but forum hunting. If at all the Appellant intends to get the matter transferred to DRT-II, Hyderabad, the Appellant has^to approach the Hon'ble DRAT, Kolkata, but not this Tribunal.

¶107

In view of my above discussion, I find that the Appellant has failed to^make out^{any valid groundsto} interfere with the orders of the ld'^{RecoveryOf{icer dated} 19.11.2019 passed in MP No.207/2019^{and accordinglyI} hold that the present Recovery^{Appeal is liable to be} dismissed.

¶108

It was thereafter^{that respondentNo'4 filed appeal} before the APPellate^Tribunal

¶109

From^{a perusal of the order d'ated 22'O2'2o21passed by} the Appellant^{Tribunal,it is seen that AppellateTribunalhas} / not mentioned any of the material dates in the said order' Instead,^{like a revenueauthorityit had gone into the issue of-} "

¶110

¶111

¶112

rectifying the boundary of the schedule property. It is interesting to note that respondent No.4 is not the only owner of the schedule property, petitioners being co-owners of the said property. This fact came to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal. Instead of adding the petitioners as respondents in the appellate proceedings, Appellate Tribunal issued notice to three persons in whose names the Certificate of Sale u'as jointly issued. Even here also Appellate Tribunal did not deem it necessary to mention the names of the three persons to whom notices were issued. However it is mentioned that notice was directed to be issued to the "said 3 persons" and in spite of issuance of notices they had chosen not to appear. What the Appellate Tribunal cleariy overlooked was that it is not issuance of notice which is relevant but service of notice so issued. There is no finding recorded by the Appeliate Tribunal that notice issued by the Appellate Tribunal was served upon "the said three persons,, including the petitioners. On this ground itself, order d,ated 22.02.2021 is liable to be set aside.

¶113

Without mentioning the source of power to order rectification of Saie Certificate that too after llfteen years, the

l-i

L-

Appellate Tribunal proceeded to and carried out the rectification.

¶118

We have carefully gone through provisions of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961 but we do not Iind any such provision which empowers the Recovery Officer for carrying out rectification of Sale Certificate.

¶119

That apart, the question of limitation cannot also be overlooked. Rectilication is sought for after hfteen years; granted after seventeen years. According to Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation lor carrying out such rectification would be three years.

¶120

it is also worth mentioning that out of the four purchasers who had jointly purchased the schedule property on auction, it is only respondent No.4 who is seeking rectiiication of the Sale Certificate.

¶121

Thus on a thorough consideration of all aspects of the matter, we are of the unhesitant view that the order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but aiso devoid of any legal sanctity, thus without jurisdiction.

¶122

¶123

37 . Further, the^{lightening speed at u'hich the rectification} of the Certificate of Sale^was carried^{out has also drawn our} attention. Immediately after the^{order dated 22.02.2021was} passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Recovery^{Officercarried out} the rectification of Certificate^{of Sale dated24.05.2004 within} two days i.e., on 24.O2.2021.

¶124

For the reasons^{discussedabove, we set aside the order} dated 22.O2.2O21^{passed by the AppellateTribunal in Appeal} No.3 of 2O2l arrd the consequential^{Rectification of Certificate} of Sale dated 26.05.2004^{carried out on 24.O2.2021'}

¶125

Writ petition is accordingly^{a11owed.Hou'ever there shall} be no order as to costs.

¶126

Miscellaneous applications,^{pending if an-v, shallstand}

closed.

//TRUE^COPY//

SD/-T.SRINIVAS DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶131

.. / 1l '

¶132

SECTION^OFFICER

¶133

To 1. The Manager, Canara Bank' Abids Branch.' Hyderabad' 2 The Recoverv^{otricer-r]tJ6iiit"i'"""vf'fqunal -1 Abids'Hvderabad'} 3. rhe Recovery^{officer-2, ffii H;;;;gi.fribunal} ;f^{noi!9' Hvderabad'} ;. o;;'iei;^{ijhr.x.v.e HnN u-pRRsRo,'Rovo-cate[oPU c]} ;. il; dd i"^{sSi.sur'rlL.BGANU.Advocatetotutlr,"} (opuc) d. il;6c^{io 5ni.t-rrruENDRANArHREDDY' Advot}

¶134