IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 96 of 2005() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2002 IN EA.552/01 IN EP.180/98 IN LAR.54/1995 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/DECREE HOLDER/CLAIMANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- V.S. KUMARAN, S/O. LATE SANKARAN, VELIKKAKATH HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O. KOCHI-682 023. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BABU SMT.N.SUDHA RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYAN. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 96 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, This is an appeal against an order dismissing an application filed by the decree holder seeking to set aside the sale. The sole respondent is the State of Kerala. Amounts were due and payable to the appellant towards compensation payable for the land acquired. Part of the amount was paid. However, for realising the balance amount, execution petition was filed and the Civil Station building in Kakkanad was brought to sale and purchased by the decree holder himself. There were number of attachments, which however, were not noticed at the time of proclamation of sale. This is the only ground raised for setting aside the sale. 2. When there were previous attachments, that should have been noticed at the the time of drawing the proclamation. Apparently that has not been done. If so, there will be material variation in the valuation of the property. Thus there is material irregularity. Though at the time of proclamation evidence as such FAO. 96/2005. 2 was not produced for establishing that there were previous attachments, it is an admitted fact that there were attachments. If so, the court below ought to have set aside the sale. However, the respondent State did not file any objection since the prayer made by the appellant is in favour of the State, as otherwise, the Civil Station will be taken possession of by the appellant. In the result, the appeal is allowed. We set aside the sale and the order passed by the court below and restore the Execution Petition to file. We are not however deciding as to whether there is any balance amount left to be realised as per the decree. The same will be decided after hearing both sides. The observation that the decree is satisfied is vacated. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb. FAO. 96/2005. 3 P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 96 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 27.5.2009.