IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 OP.No. 38667 of 2001(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.K.SANKARAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, VALACHIRA VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. *ADDL. R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED. 2. DAYAVATHI, W/O. LATE SANKARAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, VALACHAIRA VILLAGE, TRICHUR DISTRICT. 3. SAJEEVAN, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, RESIDING DO. DO. * ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF PETITIONERS AND AS ADDL. PETITIONERS VIDE ORDER IN IA. NO.14963/06 DT. 31.10.06. BY ADV. SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR SRI.N.B.ANOOP SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTOR. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), THRISSUR. 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 6. P.A. KUNJUMAMAN, POYYARA HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O., TRICHUR DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMINARAYANAN FOR R1TOR5 SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R6 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.38667/2001 ORDER ON CMP. NO.63467/2001 IN OP. NO.38667/2001 DISMISSED 24.07.2008 SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DT. 2.10.2000. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 22.3.2001. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT ,TRIVANDRUM DT. 4.8.01. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.38667 of 2001-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P2 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer refusing to confirm the sale of the property held in public auction with a further direction to conduct fresh auction. 2. The 6th respondent is the defaulter to the toddy workers welfare fund. An extent of 51.5 cents of land in Sy. No.393/1 of Kattoor village was notified for sale by public auction. The upset price of the property was fixed at Rs.2,57,500/-. The first petitioner (deceased) was the highest bidder and he deposited the bid amount of Rs.3,60,000/- within time. He was awaiting confirmation of the sale and when delay occurred in the matter, he filed Ext.P1 representation. But it appears that when the file was sent for confirmation of the sale, the Revenue Divisional Officer, by Ext.P2, cancelled the proceedings on the ground that the land may fetch more value. The petitioners challenge the same. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Shri N.N. Sugunapalan and learned Govt. Pleader. The respondents have filed a OP 38667/2001 -2- counter affidavit. A perusal of Ext.P2 shows that the only reason stated therein to set aside the sale is stated to be that the land may fetch more higher value. By relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa (1991 (2) KLT 158), learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said reason alone cannot be a ground to set aside the sale. The proviso to Section 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act reads that: “if the Collector has reason to think that the sale ought to be set aside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, he may after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale.” But herein, one important aspect has to be noticed, that before passing the order, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not hear the petitioner or the defaulter. When an administrative authority is passing an order which results in adverse civil consequences to a party, fairness demands that that party has to be heard and his objection has to be invited before the hearing is conducted. Therefore, on that reason Ext.P2 has to be set aside and I do so. There will be a direction to the third respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter after hearing the petitioners, the 6th respondent or any other affected party, within a period of three months from the date of receipt OP 38667/2001 -3- of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the matter will have to be considered with respect to the state of affairs which were existing as on the date of the sale. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 38667/2001 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.38667 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 24th July, 2008.