IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34428 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ JANSA BEEGUM, W/O.K.A.RASHEED, "RAIJA COTTAGE", PARAYATHUKONAM, KIZHUVILLAM, ATTINGAL. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 304. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 34582 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J -------------------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.34428/2010 & 34582/2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner in W.P(C) No.34582 of 2010 is the owner of immovable property having an extent of 44 cents in Survey No.380/1-1 of Avanavancheri Village, which was sold in the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against him for realisation of arrears of sales tax. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.34428 of 2010 is the auction purchaser who bid in auction the said property, in the sale conducted on 23.3.2009, for a sum of Rs.11,50,000/-. 2. The issue involved in these writ petitions pertains to claim of one of the parties for confirmation of the sale vis- a-vis the claim of other party to set aside the sale. According to the petitioner in W.P(C) No.34582 of 2010 (hereinafter referred as petitioner), he had submitted Ext.P9 petition before the 3rd respondent seeking to set aside the auction sale. Various material irregularities were pointed out with respect to conduct of the sale and it was W.P(C) No.34428/2010 & 34582/2010 2 alleged that, the property in question was sold for a paltry sum. It is evident that on the basis of Ext.P9, the 3rd respondent conducted a hearing, as evidenced from Ext.P24 notice. It is stated that the petitioner appeared for the personal hearing and submitted Ext.P11 argument notes. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had reserved the matter for pronouncing orders. Thereafter nothing was heard from the side of the 3rd respondent. But without taking any decision on Ext.P9 petition, the 3rd respondent had issued Ext.P23 order confirming the sale. Hence the petitioner is approaching this Court highly aggrieved by the order issued confirming the sale. 3. The petitioner is also raising a further contention that the liability for payment of sales tax for which the recovery was initiated was subject matter of challenge before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and by virtue of Ext.P15 order the Tribunal had set aside the assessment and remanded the matter for passing fresh orders. Exts.P18 and P19 are the modified orders of assessment issued. It is pointed out that the liability has been reduced W.P(C) No.34428/2010 & 34582/2010 3 considerably and on that basis a fresh requisition was issued by the assessing authority, revising the amounts due. It is pointed out that the original demand which was more than Rs.4 crores has now been reduced to a sum of Rs.4,52,864/-. 4. W.P(C) No.34428 of 2010 was filed by the auction purchaser raising complaint regarding non-confirmation of the sale. It is alleged that despite the sale being taken place on 23.3.2009, the respondents are not taking any effective steps for confirmation of sale and for executing the sale certificate, as well as for effecting delivery of possession of the property. 5. Heard, counsel appearing on both sides, as well as learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. On the basis of instructions, learned Government Pleader submitted that, Ext.P9 petition was pending consideration and disposal before the 3rd respondent when Ext.P23 order of confirmation was issued. Under the above circumstances, I am constrained to observe that the order of confirmation was issued without W.P(C) No.34428/2010 & 34582/2010 4 disposing Ext.P9 application filed seeking to set aside the sale. Counsel representing the auction purchaser had raised an objection to the effect that, Ext.P9 was not submitted before the proper authority and that the said petition was filed not within the time stipulated under Section 52 or 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. But I take note of the fact that, confirmation of the sale was done behind the back of the petitioner at a time when Ext.P9 petition submitted by him was pending disposal. It is also pertinent to note that the 3rd respondent has conducted a hearing on Ext.P9 and it is stated that the petitioner had submitted argument notes. Therefore, it is evident that the confirmation of sale was issued in violation of principles of natural justice. Further it is pertinent to note that the revenue recovery requisition on the basis of which the sale was conducted, no more survives. 6. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the District Collector, who is the authority concerned under Section 52 and 53 of the Act, is directed to take a fresh W.P(C) No.34428/2010 & 34582/2010 5 decision in the matter, as to whether the sale need be confirmed or set aside, after affording a reasonable opportunity to both the parties concerned. 7. In the result, these writ petitions are disposed of. Ext.P23 in W.P(C) No.34582 of 2010 is hereby quashed. The 3rd respondent in that case (The Revenue Divisional Officer) is directed to forward the entire records pertaining to Ext.P9 petition to the District Collector. The District Collector is directed to take a decision as to whether the sale in question need be confirmed or set aside, considering all aspect of the matter, in exercise of the powers vested under Section 51 to 54 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Needless to say that the petitioners in both these cases shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of hearing before finalising the proceedings. The needful in this regard shall be done by the District Collector at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM ab JUDGE