S. S. NAVALGI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the peti tioner has challenged the validity of the proclamation of sale notice dated October 1, 1975, bearing No. TR. 176/BJP/75‑76 (Exh. N.) and also the vali dity of the sales held on January 29. 1974, March 15, 1974, May 7, 1975, and on September .18, 1975.

2. During the course of the argument, Sri M. S. Padmarajaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner confines the writ petition only to the validity of the proclamation of sale notice produced as Exh. N. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the validity of the sales held on January 29, 1974, March 15, 1974. May 7, 1974, and September 18, 1975, by the second respondent. The proclamation of sale notice dated October I, 1975 (Exh. N.) was challenged on the ground that as per rule 52 of Sch. II to the I‑T. Act, which prescribes the procedure for recovery of tar, the proclamation of sale notice has not been published in the language of the district, and, therefore, the second respondent cannot proceed with the sale on the basis of the notification issued in English. As per the aforesaid rule, whenever immovable property is brought to sale for the recovery o tax by the T.R.O, the proclamation of the intended sale is required to be made also in the language of the District. It is not in dispute that the sale proclamation is not issued in the language of the district i.e. Kannada. The object of publishing the proclamation of sale in the language of the District is to enable, the residents of the district to come to know of the intended sale, so that the can participate in the auction and offer their bids and as a result thereof, the property put up for sale may fetch a good and proper price. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the T. R. O. to issue the proclamation of sale notice in the Kannada language also. As no such notice is issued in the Kannada language as required by rule 52, it is not just, proper and legal to allow the T. R. O. to proceed with, the sale. In view of the fact that the date fix for sale has already expired the second respondent is required to issue a fresh proclamation of the sale notice. Hence, it is not necessary to quash the notice dated October 1, 1975, produced as Exh. N. However, it is made clear that if the second respondent is required to proceed to recover the tax arrears by a sale of the immovable property, he shall have to publish the sale proclamation in the language of the district also as per rule 52, i. e. in Kannada language.

3. Petition dismissed.