IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19434 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ALEX GEORGE, AGED 37 YEARS, SON OF GEORGE, PALAKUNNAM ESTATE, CHERUVALLI VILLAGE, KANJJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. ANNAMMA THOMAS, W/O. LATE T.J. THOMAS, THOKKANATTU HOUSE, VANCHIMALA P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. KUTTIAMMA PAPPACHAN, D/O.LATE T.J.THOMAS NELLIYANIYIL HOUSE, KUZHITHOLU P.O., VIA VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. CHINNAMMA JOSEPH, D/O.LATE T.J.THOMAS, ERATHU HOUSE, KARKKLAM-ALIKKULAM P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. T.T. JOSEPH, S/O. LATE T.J. THOMAS, THOKKANATTU HOUSE, MULLARINGADU P.O., VANNAPPURAM, VIA THODUPUZHA. 7. SKARIA THOMAS, S/O. LATE T.J.THOMAS THOKKANATTU HOUSE, VANCHIMALA P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. T.T. THOMAS, S/O. LATE T.J. THOMAS, THOKKANATTU HOUSE, VANCHIMALA P.O., ELAMGULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. T.T. GEORGE, S/O. LATE T.J. THOMAS, THOKKANATTU HOUSE, KAILASATHU KAVALA, CHERUVALLY P.O., CHERUVALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 10. KOLYKUTTY THOMICHAN, ELAYADATHU VEEDU, KOLANI P.O., VIA THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 11. SHERLY JAMES MATHEW, KAKKAPPARA VEEDU, CHENAPPADI P.O., ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. 12. JOLLY, D/O. LATE T.J. THOMAS, AND W/O. SUNNY, EANTHATHOTTAM VEEDU, ELAKKADU VILLAGE, MARANGATTUPPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1&2 BY G.P. SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON 23/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF ATTACHMENT MAHAZAR PREPARED BY R2 IN RESPECT OF 2 ACRES IN SY. NO.602/2-2 OF ELAMGULAM VILLAGE IN KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. P2:TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.8.1.1992 PASSED BY R1. P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.26.9.2003 IN O.P. NO.7564/1992-A OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P4: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.14.11.2003 IN W.A. NO.1877 OF 2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5: TRUE COPY OF NOTES OF ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED BY COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.9.3.2004 PASSED BY R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LOCAL INVESTIGATION AND PREPARATION OF MAHAZAR IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DT.25.2.2004. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.19434 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order of the RDO declining to confirm the sale of property in revenue recovery proceedings in his favour. In fact this is the second round of litigation in the same matter and in the first round, this court directed the RDO to reconsider the matter which led to Ext.P6. Instead of filing a revision against RDO's order before the Land Revenue Commissioner under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, challenge against Ext.P6 is made directly in this court. I heard counsel for the petitioner and Government Pleader. 2. Sale made to the petitioner on 29.7.1991 was for Rs.1,67,500/- whereas the liability as on that date which is abkari dues was Rs.2,49,760/-. Government Pleader submitted that RDO declined to confirm the sale and set aside the sale because even the building in the property was not valued and sale was found to be at far below the market price. Irrespective of whether sale is at market price or not, there is a mandatory provision contained in Section 50 that if the highest bid amount in first sale is below the arrear amount, the recovery authority is bound to adjourn the sale to 2 another day and Government has option to purchase the property in the second sale. Since this mandatory provision is violated, sale is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. Even though petitioner has raised a contention that RDO has no authority to set aside sale, it is conceded that RDO is the authority to confirm the sale and if he does not confirm the sale, the same automatically follows that the sale made stands cancelled and fresh sale has to be made. The W.P. is therefore devoid of any merit and is dismissed leaving freedom to the petitioner to claim refund of the amount from the Government and if any claim for refund is made, the same should be granted without any delay. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms