IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 37478 of 2007(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL SHUKOOR, S/O.HUSSAINKUTTY, METHALAKANDI HOUSE, PANAMARAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD. 3. THE SUB COLLECTOR, MANANTHAVADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. M.K. ABDULLA, ABCO AGENCIES, PANAMARAM, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.37478/2007-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 25/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 23/12/2006 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 09/08/2007 FROM THE R.3. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/08/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 ......................................................................... Dated this the 2nd September , 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent/Sub Collector, whereby the sale of the property conducted on 25.11.2006 in favour of the petitioner was set aside under section 54 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; Referring to the 'order' given by the first respondent in this regard. the steps to effect re-sale, have been intercepted by this Court as per the interim order dated 18.12.2007, when the Writ Petition was admitted, issuing notice to the respondents. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ Petition shows that the 4th respondent herein was the defaulter in respect of the sales tax arrears to be cleared, pursuant to which the property of the 4th respondent was proceeded against by the concerned authorities and the same was put to public auction. The petitioner participated in the sale proceedings and came out to be the successful bidder, who satisfied 15% of the W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 2 bid amount, as borne by Ext.P1 receipt. The balance amount was satisfied within the stipulated time as borne by Ext.P2. However, on a fine morning, the petitioner was served with Ext. P3 notice issued by the 3rd respondent intimating the petitioner that the Commissioner for Land Revenue/the first respondent, on the basis of a complaint preferred by a political party, had ordered the sale to be set aside, referring to the comparatively lower amount procured in the sale when the property was allegedly having a higher market value, of course inviting objections from the petitioner . It is stated that the petitioner submitted Ext.P4, seeking for further time to ascertain the actual position and to submit a detailed reply. However, without any regard to the same, Ext.P5 order was passed by the third respondent setting aside the sale as ordered by the first respondent, observing that, neither the petitioner nor the 4th respondent was present. The petitioner is challenging the correctness and sustainability of the above proceedings in this Writ Petition. 3. In spite of service of notice to the concerned W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 3 respondents, the 4th respondent, who was the defaulter and whose property was sold in public auction , has not chosen to enter appearance before this Court . The only reason stated in Ext.P5, forming the subject matter of the complaint, is that the property was never sold for the actual market value and that the same requires to be sold afresh with wide publicity. If at all anybody is to be held as aggrieved, it could only be the 4th respondent, who obviously has never submitted any complaint, either before the Sub collector or before the Commissioner for Land Revenue. So also, the said respondent, inspite of the receipt of notice, has not appeared before this Court as well, nor does he have any case that the property has been sold for a price much less than the market value, so as to call for interference. 4. Another aspect to be considered is the reference made to the 'order' stated as passed by the first respondent in Ext. P5 issued by the third respondent directing sale to be set aside and to conduct it afresh with wide publicity. The said direction was issued by the first respondent vide letter No.LRC1-455/07 dated W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 4 02.04.2007, ordering the District Collector to set aside the sale and to conduct re-sale with wide publicity. It was pursuant to this, that the District Collector, Wayanad/second respondent herein, issued the proceedings dated 22.06.2007 (referred to as the first item in Ext.P5 ). It was accordingly and also in furtherance to the letter dated 24.07.2007 of the Tahsildar (referred to as item No.2 in Ext.P5), that the third respondent issued Ext P3 notice, finally leading to Ext.P5 order, setting aside the sale. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the course pursued by the concerned respondents is not correct or sustainable either on facts or in law . 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who explained the position with regard to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. Going by the undisputed extent of the facts and figures, the first respondent has issued the order dated 02.04.2007 at the instance of the complaint preferred by the CPI Mandalam Committee, Mananthavady, referring to the inadequate value generated in the revenue sale, on comparison with the market W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 5 value of the land and the said order was passed without any notice of hearing to the petitioner, who was the successful bidder. Even though Ext.P5 order was passed after issuing Ext.P3 notice by the third respondent, it is stated in Ext. P5 itself that the first respondent has already directed the second respondent to set aside the sale and it is on the basis of the said order, that the sale was set aside. 6. The conspicuous absence/denial of any opportunity of hearing, prior to issuance of the adverse order by the 1st respondent very much adversely affects the sustainability of the impugned order . So also, whether such a course could have been pursued, when the owner of the property, i.e., the 4th respondent did never have any such case , is also a matter to be considered by the concerned authority. 7. In the above circumstance, Ext.P5 order as well as the other proceedings referred to therein, particularly the order dated 02.04.2007 stated as passed by the first respondent are set aside and the third respondent is directed to consider the matter, as to the further steps, untrammeled by any of the W.P.(C) No. 37478 OF 2007 6 observations made by the second respondent/District Collector as well as first respondent/Commissioner for Land Revenue with regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, who happened to be the successful bidder. The proceedings as above shall be finalised in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk