IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 15375 of 2006(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- NARAYANANKUTTY, SON OF SANKARAN NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, KANTHOLI HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNU P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO. M-11, TIRUR- 676 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO. M-11, TIRUR-676 101. 3. SPECIAL SALE OFFICER, TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.M-11, TIRUR-676 101. 4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) MALAPPURAM. W.P.(C). NO.15375/2006-E: *ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED: 5. SHRI.M. MOHANDAS, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO. M.11, TIRUR – 676 101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 08/07/09 IN I.A. 14111/08. R1 & R2 BY MR.V.G.ARUN, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15375/2006-E: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OF TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO. M.11 DTD. 24/08/2005. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24/08/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND THE AMOUNT FOR THE STAMP PAPER DEPOSITED ON 08/09/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION ORDER OF THE SALE BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), MALAPPURAM DTD. 17/03/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER BY REGD. POST TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BANK. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.4. DTD. 23/05/2006. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.15375 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Although notice was issued by special messenger to the addl. 5th respondent and the same has been served, there is no appearance on his behalf. 2. Pursuant to the orders passed in EP.No.2/2005, the property having an extent of 35 ½ cents situated in R.S.No.134/17-A of Vallikunnu vilalge in Trirurangadi Taluk was auctioned by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was the highest bidder and by Ext.P1 proceedings, the 3rd respondent provisionally confirmed the sale in his favour. As the petitioner had already remitted 15% of the auction amount in terms of the auction condition, the petitioner remitted the balance amount and Exts.P2 and P3 are the receipts evidencing such remittance. WP(c).No.15375/06 2 3. It is seen from Ext.P4 proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 17.3.2006 that, he found that the sale was conducted fully in compliance with the provisions of the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank 1984 and that there was no application for setting aside the sale in terms of Section 21 of the said Act. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was requesting for execution of sale deed in his favour but however there was no response. Finally, he received Ext.P6 proceedings of the Joint Registrar canceling the auction and setting aside the sale. 4. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the order was passed pursuant to a compliant made by the additional 5th respondent that the price fetched in the auction was too low. According to him, the property ought to have fetched Rs.7,000/- per cent and the auction price was too disproportionate. In Ext.P6, the allegation that the petitioner did not remit the balance amount due under Ext.P1 within the time specified has been rejected but however on the finding that there is a possibility of fetching a better price, the auction has been WP(c).No.15375/06 3 canceled. It is challenging Ext.P6 that this writ petition has been filed. 5. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, once the sale has been confirmed, it can be set aside as provided in Section 21 of the Act referred to above. In this case, no proceedings as contemplated in Section 21 were initiated by any one of the parties and if so, once the sale has been held valid and confirmed, it cannot be reopened and cancelled. Even otherwise, a reading of Ext.P6, an order passed by the Joint Registrar shows that it is only on the basis of surmises that the sale has been cancelled. Therefore, I am not inclined to uphold Ext.P6 and Ext.P6 is set aside. Respondents 1 and 3 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.15375/06 4