IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30900 of 2011(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANSY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING IN PONPUZHA HOUSE, PAKKAYAM, WEST ELERI P.O., NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. NILESHWAR BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671 314, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. K.UMMER, PUZHAKKARA HOUSE, WEST ELERI P.O., NEELESWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 314. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.19.3.03 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.25.3.03 SUBMITTED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.22.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, HOSDURG. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND APPLICATION DTD.28.10.09 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBORDINTE JUDGE'S COURT, HOSDURG. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.4.3.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. / TRUE COPY / P.S.TO JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.30900 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner and her husband availed a loan from the second respondent bank on the security of a parcel of land, 1.50 acres in extent, situate in R.S.No.194/1 Part of Beemanadi Village, Hosdurg Taluk, Kasargod District. When they defaulted repayment of the loan the bank filed an arbitration case, ARC No.113 of 2001, wherein the Arbitrator passed an award on 7.9.2011 directing the petitioner and her husband to pay to the second respondent bank the sum of Rs.1,39,418/- together with future interest and costs. Even thereafter the petitioner and her husband did not repay the debt. The second respondent bank thereupon filed E.P.No.118 of 2006 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hosdurg for execution of the award and pursuant to the order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hosdurg in that petition, the said parcel of land was brought to sale, sold and purchased by the second respondent bank itself on 16.9.2008. The sale was confirmed and thereafter a sale certificate was issued on 19.12.2008. The second W.P(C).No.30900 of 2011 -:2:- respondent bank thereafter filed E.A.No.267 of 2009 in E.P.No.118 of 2006 for delivery of the property. The petitioner has however, not stated what transpired thereafter. Later in an auction conducted by the second respondent bank on 21.10.2011 the third respondent purchased the property. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the said sale inter alia on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, that there was no proper publication and that no notice was issued to the petitioner or her husband. 2. Ext.P4 application filed by the second respondent bank to obtain delivery of the property discloses that it had purchased the property in execution of the award passed in A.R.C.No.113 of 2001 on 16.9.2008. Thereupon a sale certificate was issued in favour of the second respondent bank on 19.12.2008. The sale in favour of the second respondent bank has become final and thereby it became the owner of the property. What is challenged in this writ petition is the subsequent sale by the second respondent bank in a public auction. The petitioner has not pleaded that after the sale in favour of the second respondent bank was confirmed and a sale certificate was issued, the property was not delivered to the bank. Apart from stating in ground E of the writ petition that great injustice will be done to the petitioner if the house where she is residing with her family is allowed to be W.P(C).No.30900 of 2011 -:3:- sold out, the petitioner has not pleaded anywhere in the writ petition that the property which was purchased by the second respondent bank in the sale held on 16.9.2008 has not been delivered over to the bank. The petitioner has also no case that before the bank sold the property by public auction it did not obtain the prior approval of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies or of its general body in terms of the provisions in rule 54 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1959. In other words, there is no material on record to indicate that the sale held by the second respondent bank, which had become the owner of the property consequent on the sale in its favour more than three years back, is illegal. In such circumstances, as the sale held in faour of the second respondent bank is not challenged, the petitioner or her husband cannot contend that the sale held by the second respondent bank to the third respondent is vitiated. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.30900 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 7th December, 2011