IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15332 of 2009(J) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. T.V.VARKEY, THURACKAL HOUSE, KALAYANTHANI P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. C.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIMATTOM P.O. 3. RETNAMMA, W/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIMATTOM P.O. 4. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KAIKKATHADATHIL, PANNIAMATTOM P.O. BY ADV. MR. T.I.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, PAINAVU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, IDUKK. 4. THE TAHASILDAR (R.R.), TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 5. T.K.NARAYANAN NAIR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.THENAMMAKKAL RUBBER, ARIKKUZHA P.O., THODUPUZHA. 6. THE CANARA BANK, THODUPUZHA BRANCH, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN R6 BY ADV. MR. P.GOPINATHA MENON, TANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P. (C) No. 15332 of 2009 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioners are before this Court challenging Ext.P16 order passed by the first respondent, whereby the 'revenue sale' conducted originally in favour of the first respondent has been set aside for violation of the statutory prescription. 2. The essential facts leading to Ext.P16 are to be looked into, before adjudicating the matter. The Revenue authorities had proceeded against the original owner of the property of 52.5. cents for realization of the amount due towards the loan, pursuant to the requisition made by the Creditor Bank. The sale was conducted by the 4th respondent in respect of the total arrears of Rs.11,57,908/- plus interest. The sale fetched only Rs. 1,07,500/-, which was bid by the 1st petitioner. On remitting the said amount, the sale was confirmed in favour of the first petitioner as per the proceedings of the 3rd respondent. However, it remains a fact that the Bank was not given any idea as to the above sale proceedings. 3. Met with the above circumstances, the Bank approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 36402 of 2003, stating that there is violation of the statutory prescriptions in so far as the bid amount was much less than the actual dues. Reliance is placed on Section 50 of the WP (C) No. 15332 of 2009 : 2 : Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, which stipulates that, if there was no bid or if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the said arrears and those subsequently accruing due upto the date of the sale, together with interest and cost of process, the officer conducting the sale shall postpone the sale to another date which shall not be later than sixty days from the date of the first sale and give notice of the subsequent sale as prescribed. After considering the facts and figures, this Court passed Ext.P9 judgment directing the matter to be considered by the first respondent/Government particularly in view of the power conferred under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P9 verdict, the matter was considered by the Government, leading to Ext.P13 order, whereby the sale was set aside, holding that there was clear infringement of the legal provisions. The above order was challenged by the petitioner by filing WP(C) No. 35838 of 2004, which invited Ext.P14 judgment, where interference was declined. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Division Bench of this Court by filing W.A. 101 of 2009 stating that Ext.P13 was passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, particularly since notice of hearing was served only after the due date of hearing. In the said circumstance, the Division Bench of this Court, as per Ext.P15 judgment, directed the first respondent to reconsider the WP (C) No. 15332 of 2009 : 3 : matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Pursuant to this, the entire facts and circumstances were analysed and appreciated by the first respondent, passing Ext.P16 order, set asiding the sale for violation of the statutory prescription, which in turn has been subjected to challenge in the present Writ Petition. 5. The factual position as to the non compliance with specific mandate under Section 50 while conducting the sale, when the bid amount was less than the amount due, has not been chosen to be rebutted from the part of the departmental authorities, particularly the 4th respondent who conducted sale. There is no case even for the petitioner that the above statutory prescription was complied with or that there is no violation in this regard. It is after considering all these vital particulars, that the first respondent passed Ext.P16 order, specifically adverting to the rival claims. It is very much evident from Ext.P16 that the matter has been considered in detail and decision has been arrived at, with proper application of mind. Since the violation of the relevant provisions of the law is very well established, Ext.P16 order passed by the first respondent, giving proper reasoning does not call for any interference and the case put forth by the petitioners is devoid of any merit. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that WP (C) No. 15332 of 2009 : 4 : after the confirmation of sale in favour of the 1st petitioner, mutation was effected in the village records and thereafter, part of the above properties was conveyed to the petitioners 3 to 4 and that they are enjoying the extents for the past several years. But the said submission does not deserve to be considered, particularly in view of the fact that the sale originally effected in favour of the first petitioner stands set aside and hence no legally recognizable conveyance exists in the name of the petitioners 2 to 4. 7. On conclusion of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to settle the liabilities towards the Bank so as to save the property in question. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, referring to the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent, submits that as on date, a sum Rs.11,27,357/- is due to the Bank and if the petitioners are prepared to clear the amount on or before 30.6.2009 along with the legal expenses, the Bank would not have any objection to recognize the title, possession and ownership of the petitioners over the property in question. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners prays for one month's time to effect the payment as aforesaid. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to give some breathing time to the petitioners, particularly in WP (C) No. 15332 of 2009 : 5 : view of the fact that the petitioners have been enjoying the property for the last so many years. 9. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to clear the dues to the Bank in toto, within a period of one month. On such an event, the Bank shall issue a certificate to the petitioners in this regard, particularly as to the recognition of the title of the petitioners. After clearing the dues as above, the petitioners are permitted to approach first respondent by filing a petition for reconsidering the matter. Upon filing any such petition, supported with clearance/no objection certificate obtained from the Bank, the first respondent shall pass necessary orders reviewing Ext.P16, in view of the withdrawal of the contentions from the part of the Bank as to the title, ownership and possession over the property in question. Necessary orders shall be passed there on, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of filing the representation as above, supported with documents/no objection certificate issued by the Bank. It is also made clear that, the original owner of the property, having not turned up before this Court or any other statutory authority challenging the sale, the first respondent need not issue any notice to the original owner of the property, with regard to the finalization of the proceedings in tune with the observations made above and the original owner will WP (C) No. 15332 of 2009 : 6 : not have any claim over the property in question under any circumstances. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd