Where a time has been prescribed under a statute and discretion has not been granted to extend the time then the Officer would have no authority to either extend the time for deposit, or to entertain the application for setting aside the sale not supported by deposit

The Supreme Court in the matter of Narayan Yadav vs The State of Bihar (Civil Appeal No.9173 OF 2010) on 25.02.2020 held that in absence of any power conferred under Section 28 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 on the Certificate Officer, the Certificate Officer had no authority to either extend the time for deposit, or to entertain the application for setting aside the sale, which was not supported by deposit.
Facts:
One Sadhusharan Yadav, Respondent No.14 herein, took a loan from the Land Development Bank, Uda Kishunganj (Madhipura) by mortgaging his agricultural land. He defaulted in payment of loan and, thus a certificate case No.338 of 1981-82 was initiated for realization of said loan amount. It appears that even before initiation of certificate proceedings, the mortgaged land was sold by the Respondent No.14 to the objectors- writ petitioners by executing registered sale deeds. In realization of the loan amount, the mortgaged land, i.e. the land in question, was sold by way of auction. The appellants herein are the purchasers in the auction sale. The respondents-writ petitioners having come to know about the auction sale, filed an application before the Certificate Officer on 15.07.1983 under Section 28 of Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (hereinafter “the Act”).
Though, the said application was filed for setting aside the sale, no deposit of any amount was made as required under Section 28 of the Act. The Certificate Officer by an order permitted the objectors-writ petitioners to deposit the amount. The respondent-writ petitioners claimed to have deposited the amount. The Certificate Officer allowed the objections of the respondent-writ petitioners and set- aside the sale dated 15.06.1983. The auction purchaser had filed an application before the Collector, Madhipura. The Collector, vide his order dated 29.01.1985, set-aside the order of Certificate Officer on the ground that the money, as required under Section 28 of the Act, was not deposited within the stipulated time. Assailing such orders, the respondent-writ petitioners filed a Writ Petition, W.P.No.3295 of 1987, before the High Court of Patna. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, and restored the order of the Certificate Officer, where he had set-aside the sale. The said order of the learned Single Judge is confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants herein, and their appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order.
The appellants contended that since the respondent-writ petitioners did not make any deposit along with their application as required under Section 28 of the Act and that there is a mandatory requirement of deposit for making an application to set-aside the sale, no application could have been entertained for setting aside the sale in absence of such deposit within the time stipulated under law. Further, it is submitted, that in absence of any power conferred on the Certificate Officer, the Certificate Officer had no authority to either extend the time for deposit, or to entertain the application for setting aside the sale, which was not supported by deposit.
Issue:
Interpretation of Section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914
Ratio
It is clear from the language of the aforesaid Section, that the application is to be filed at any time within thirty days from the date of sale by depositing the amount. If the application filed under Section 28 of the Act is to be treated as valid it must be along with the deposit as contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Act. When there is a prescribed time of thirty days from the date of sale, in absence of any power on the certifying officer to extend the time, he has no jurisdiction at all to extend the time of deposit, beyond the period of thirty days from date of sale. The said provision under Section 28 is intended to safeguard the interests of persons who are affected by the sale, to approach the competent authority within the prescribed time by depositing the purchase amount along with ten percent thereof as penalty which is payable to auction purchaser for retaining the land. If deposits are allowed to be made even after thirty days, same will run contrary to Section 28 itself and frustrate the object of the provision.
In effect, the civil appeal is allowed and the application filed by the respondent-writ petitioners stands rejected, however, they are entitled for refund of money deposited by them before the Certificate Officer.