IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 19507 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ MEENA ASHOKAN, CHARANGATTU HOUSE, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O, CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, TRIVANDRUM. 695039 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA. 688001 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,CHERTHALA. 688524 4. C.S.SWAMINATHAN, CHALLIYIL, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O, CHERTHALA. 688544 R1 TO 3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR , ASGI. SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 19507 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ------------------------------------ EXT.P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WP N.8220 OF 2007. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.33240/05 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP NO.14717/08 EXT.P8. COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE OF FAIR RENT FIXED EXT.P9. COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER UNDER THE ANNESTY SCHEME RESPODNENT'S EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXT.R4(A). COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE MONEY EXT.R4(A)(I). COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 13.08.2007 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXT.R4(B). COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2008 AS IN NO.LRB4-56311/07 EXT.R4(C). COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN OS. NO.905/07. EXT.R4 (D). COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE NO.B 5489/2007 ON 27.6.2009 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. EXT.R4(E). COPY OF THE PROPERTY EXCHANGING MAHAZAR IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXT.R4(F). COPY OF REMITTANCE OF THE PROPERTY TAX ON 14.8.2009. EXT.R4(G). COPY of the PLAN OF THE PROPERTY APPROVED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER WITH THE MAHASSAR DATED 21.08.2009. / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 19507 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a defaulter in repayment of Abkari dues. The respondents 1 to 3 brought properties belonging to the petitioner for sale under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for recovery of the dues and sold the same to the 4th respondent in a revenue sale. The petitioner is challenging the sale on the ground that the property was grossly undervalued. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. The arrears relates to the Abkari year 1993-94. The liability is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioner and others involved have filed a number of writ petitions and succeeded in protracting the sale and recovery of the amounts due for all these years. Pursuant to directions of this court in one of those writ petitions, the Land Revenue Commissioner has considered the contention of the W.P.(C)No. 19507 of 2008 -2- petitioner and passed Ext.P6 order wherein it is stated as follows: “The main contentions of Smt. Meena Ashokan are as follows. RR notices issued to her are illegal. Valuation of the property and the buildings therein was not done. The land to be auctioned was not demarcated and the exact amount to be recovered and all the details of the land were not shown in the notices. The land auctioned on 13/8/2007 was not the land mentioned in the notice of attachment. No adequate publicity was given for the auction sale. The property has been sold for a grossly inadequate price. She also points out that the auction sale held on 13/8/2007 and the order No.B7-3676/96 dated 7/11/2007 of the District Collector, Alapuzha are liable to be set aside on the ground of material irregularity, mistake and fraud. The District Collector of mateirla Alapuzha vide letter No. B7-3676/96(1) dated 22/2/2008 reported that 33.79 ares of land in the name of Smt. Meena Ashokan comprised in Sy.No. 17/4 of Mararikkulam village was auctioned on 13/8/2007 on the basis of the order dated 4/6/2007 of the High Court in WP(C) No.36390/05, 14887/07, 15203/07, 15364/07 along with the properties of Sri. C. Sachidanandan and Sri. T.D. Thampi. 33.79 Ares of land in the said Sy.No. was demarcated and a separate sketch was prepared prior to the auction sale of the property. So her contentions that the said land was not properly identified is baseless. And all the other objections regarding the notices are not sustainable. The details of arrears to be recovered and all other details to be communicated to the defaulter were clearly shown in the RR notice u/s.49(2). The property sold in the auction sale had been attached u/s.36 of the KRR Act. As per the provisions of the KRR Act due publicity was given to the auction sale and the land was auctioned for reasonable price. Hearing in the case was posted to 8/4/2008. The counsel of the petitioner and respondent were present. The counsel for the petitioner argued as follows. The auction sale conducted by the Tahsildar Cherthala was totally irregular. The land in Cherthala town was sold in auction for a meager sum when compared to the current market value. In RR Notice, only the land was mentioned and not the improvements thereon. In the order of the Hon'ble high Court in WP(C) No.8220/07 there is a direction to the Tahsildar and the District Collector, Alapuzha. Hence it is requested that the impugned auction should be set W.P.(C)No. 19507 of 2008 -3- aside and re-auction ordered. The counsel for the respondent argue as follows. The sale was according to the order dated 4/6/2007 of the Hon'ble High Court in WP(C) No.30390/05 and the sale was conducted after complying the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in March 2007. In recovery notices Sy.No., extent, village etc, were given and this enough to identify the property. Provisions u/s.52 was also availed. The respondent has already paid the amount. There were seven bidders. There was no irregularity. The aim of the petitioner is only to delay RR proceedings. The counsel of the respondent requested to dismiss the revision petition and confirm the sale. According to the Tahsildar Cherthala at the time of auction the due amount was Rs.2534412/ ORDER After hearing both sides and perusing the records. I find that the sale was conducted as per the provisions of the KRR Act and complying the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. In the circumstances the revision petition is dismissed. And the stay granted as per the proceedings read as second paper is hereby vacated.” 4. The petitioner is challenging the same. From the reasons given in Ext.P6, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the orders passed. The petitioner was quite aware of the sale proceedings. If the property was worth more, it was perfectly open to the petitioner to bring a purchaser for a higher price. It is common knowledge that in a distress sale in view of the uncertainty attached to revenue sale, bidders would be few and consequently the W.P.(C)No. 19507 of 2008 -4- price also will come down. It cannot be expected that in a revenue sale the property will fetch the actual market value itself. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that the sale was vitiated by any irregularity, fraud or otherwise. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/