IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24862 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.R.RENUKA,AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.LATE.VENUNATHA PILLAI,THEKKEKKUTTU HOUSE, T.P.PURAM P.O.,VAZHOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ SMT.A.S.BEENU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 3. TAHSILDAR,CHANGANASSERY,KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 24862 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th August , 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge involved in the Writ Petition is that the petitioner despite being the successful bidder who has effected the entire sale consideration , was awaiting conformation by the second respondent, which is only a statutory formality. However, without any notice the sale is stated as cancelled on a fine morning, that too after six months and the position was let known to the petitioner by the third respondent as per Ext. P4, simultaneously notifying fresh sale of the very same property to be held on 17.08.2010, as per Ext.P5, which hence is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that absolutely no opportunity was given to the petitioner before setting aside the sale and this by itself violates all the known principles of natural justice. W.P.(C) No. 24862 OF 2010 2 3. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instruction, submits that cancellation of the sale was effected for the reasons stated in Ext. P3 and in view of patent infringement of the statutory prescription, the sale was not liable to be confirmed. However, the learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing Ext. P3. By virtue of law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in Captain vs. District Collector (1999 (2) KLT 547), before taking any proceedings under Section 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act, it is very much essential to serve notice to the bidder. 4. Since the above said requirement is not satisfied in the present case, the matter requires to be reconsidered by the appropriate authority. Accordingly, Ext.P3 passed by the second respondent and the consequential order, Ext.P4 passed by he third respondent are hereby set aside. The second respondent is directed to re-consider and finalize the matter in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others concerned, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within W.P.(C) No. 24862 OF 2010 3 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk