Judgment:
R.K. Abichandani, J.
1. Rule. Learned counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi for M/s M. R. Bhatt & Co. waives service of rule.
2. At the instance of both the sides, the matter is being finally disposed of. The petitioner challenges the sale proclamation dt. 4th February, 1997, and also the sale of petitioner's property in question held on 25th March, 1997, as per the advertisement published on 12th March, 1997, and seeks a direction on the respondents from selling the property of the petitioner, without issuing a valid proclamation of sale, as provided by the IT Act and the Rules.
3. The notice for settlement of sale proclamation was issued on 4th February, 1997, informing the petitioner that (blank) day of March, 1997 was fixed for drawing up the proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. However, before that could be done, on 4th February, 1997 itself, it was declared that the sale of the property in question will take place on 25th March, 1997.
4. Similar situation had arisen before this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2381 of 1997, and the Division Bench vide its order dt. 21st March, 1997 [reported as Jethmal Bhagwandas Shah vs. TRO & Anr.], held that the proclamation in that case issued on 12th March, 1997 could not be allowed to be operated, and the properties of petitioner could not be allowed to be auctioned in pursuance of the notice dt. 12th March, 1997. It was made clear in that case that, the authorities were free to proceed in accordance with law, after settling the proclamation in pursuance of the notice issued to the petitioner. There, the date for fixation of terms and conditions of the proclamation was fixed as 31st March, 1997.
5. In the instant case, it could be seen from the notice for settlement of proclamation dt. 4th February, 1997 that, the exact date fixed for settlement was not mentioned and it was only said that (blank) day of March, 1997 was fixed for drawing up the proclamation of sale and settling the terms thereof. Therefore, the petitioner would have been justified in waiting till the end of March, 1977. By another notice, simultaneously issued on 4th February, 1997, the sale was sought to be held on 25th March, 1997. This could not have been done without allowing the notice dt. 4th February, 1997, for settlement of terms and conditions of sale proclamation to fully operate. Under these circumstances, the sale proclamation dt. 4th February, 1997, which did not specify the exact date fixed for settlement of sale proclamation and the auction of the petitioner's property held on 25th March, 1997 cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside, with a liberty to authorities to proceed in accordance with law, after settling the proclamation by issuing a fresh notice for settlement of terms and conditions of sale proclamation. Rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.