IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15189 of 2005(G) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. ABDUL RAZAQ.A.M., S/O.MEERANNAN, MUBARAK MANZIL, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. 2. K.K.FAIZAL, S/O.KASIM, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, SANTHI NAGAR, VALADY, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. 3. M.H.SULAIMAN RAWTHER, S/O.HASSAN RAWTHER, MALAMEL HOUSE, NELLIMALA JUNCTION, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MACHUMALA VILLAGE, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI. 4. KURIAN, PATTAMURI ESTATE, KARADAKUZHI, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI. 5. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C) NO. 15189/2005 7. M/S. R.B.T LIMITED, SIDHARTH, II MAIN ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 8. SYNDICATE BANK, MAIN BRANCH, MATTANCHERRY, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. *ADDL. R6 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/01/2006 IN IA NO. 18608/2005. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJKUMAR SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU FOR R8 SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R.4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 15189/2005 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 09/05/2003. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MADYAMAM DAILY ON 16/5/2003. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R1 BY P1 DT. 09/05/2003. EXT.P3A. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE R1 BY P2'S FATHER DT. 8/5/2003. EXT.P3B. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE R1 BY THE P3 DT. 09/05/2003. EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DIST. COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONERS DT. 19/5/2003. EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DIST. COLLECTOR DT. 6/10/2004. EXT.P6. COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R5 DT. 19/11/2004. EXT.P7. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 34170/2004 DT. 2/12/2004. EXT.P8. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29/4/05 OF THE R5. EXT.P9. COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 10/1/01 BY THE P1 HAD BROUGHT THREE CENTS OF LAND. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4A. COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE. EXT.R4B. COPY OF THE PROCLAMATION OF SALE DT. 15/6/2005. EXT.R4C. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2603/2002 DT. 30/09/2002. EXT.R8A. COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED IN OA NO. 224/1998 DT. 2/09/98. EXT.R8B. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 27/6/2000 IN OA NO. 224/98 BY DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, KERALA. EXT.R8C. COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DT. 25/6/2001. True copy Tga ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.15189/2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P5 and P8. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the first respondent rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act and Ext.P8 is an order passed by the 5th respondent rejecting an appeal filed against Ext.P5. 2. The facts of the case are that, M/s. RBT group of estates owned different tea estates in the Vandiperiyar area of Idukki District. For the non-payment of basic tax and plantation tax, recovery proceedings were initiated by respondents 2 and 3 and as a part there of, 5 acres of tea estate were brought for sale in terms of the provisions contained under the Revenue Recovery Act. In the sale that was conducted on 7.5.2003, there were different bidders and the 4th respondent herein was the highest bidder who WP(c).No.15189/2005 2 had bid Rs.22.35 lakhs. It being the highest bid, sale was confirmed in his favour and it is stated that he has remitted the entire sale consideration also. 3. Though the defaulter has not chosen to impugne the sale for any reason, the petitioners who are strangers, who also did not participate in the sale, filed an application before the District Collector under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act seeking to get the sale set aside. The District Collector considered the matter and by Ext.P5 order rejected the application. The matter was carried in appeal by Ext.P6 before the 5th respondent who also rejected the appeal by Ext.P8. It is in this background the writ petition has now been filed by the aforesaid strangers, seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P8. 4. Two grounds are urged by the petitioners and they are that, adequate publicity was not given and that the sale consideration was too inadequate. From the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is seen that, initially the total upset price was fixed at Rs.5,05,875/-- and WP(c).No.15189/2005 3 realizing that, it was too low, it was revised and fixed at Rs.20 lakhs, which is at the rate of Rs.4000/- per cent. It is stated that after completing all the procedures as are necessary in the Revenue Recovery Act, auction was scheduled to be held on 9.1.2002. It is stated that before that, copy of the sale notice was forwarded to the District Information Centre for giving publicity through the news paper advertisements. It is also stated that the notice was published in the Panchayat Office and Village Office as well. It is stated that the auction was however postponed and that too was intimated to the District Information Centre. It is stated that the auction got postponed again due to absence of bidders and that after notice in the manner as indicated above, auction was scheduled on 7.5.2003. On that day, 8 bidders including the 4th respondent were present. The auction took place at 11 a.m and was settled accepting the highest bid of the 4th respondent at Rs.22,35,000/-. WP(c).No.15189/2005 4 5. From above, it is obvious that the plea of the petitioners that adequate publicity was not given is factually erroneous. This very issue has been considered by both the District Collector as well as the Land Revenue Commissioner on the petition filed under Section 53 and in the appeal and this petition rejected by both the authorities. In view of this and in the absence of any material to the contrary, I am not inclined to accept the plea raised in the writ petition. 6. The other contention that was urged by the petitioner is regarding the inadequacy of the price. As already stated, initially up set price was fixed at Rs.5,05,875/-. It is seen from the statement that, on 24.2.2003, the upset price of the land was revised after examining 5 similar deeds from the locality and other documents and the value of the land was fixed at Rs.4000/- per cent. It is on that basis the upset price at a total of Rs.20,00,000/- was fixed and the auction was conducted. On the facts as above, I do not think it is correct to accept WP(c).No.15189/2005 5 the vague plea raised by the petitioner that the value fixed is incorrect. That apart, in view of the judgment of this court reported in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa( 1991(2) KLT 158, where inadequacy of the value fixed was pleaded to invalidate sale, it was held that such a plea alone cannot be a reason to invalidate a revenue sale that is otherwise validly conducted. In view of all this, both the grounds urged by the petitioners are only to be rejected. 7. I also notice that, this is a case where defaulter has not chosen to impugn the sale before any forum. In such circumstances, the petitioners who were not even bidders are in fact strangers and they lack locus standi to file this petition. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.15189/2005 6