other partners fetched sufficient amount to adjust full arrears and, therefore, there was no need to sell appellant's property. However, Government Pleader submitted that the sale was effected under direction issued by this court in the earlier round of litigation wherein appellant was also a party. Since sale of appellant's property for recovery of arrears is under orders of this court, we are of the view that appellant should not be permitted to challenge the sale at all. Recovery was delayed for several years on account of protracted litigation by appellant and other co-licencees who are partners of the firm and close relatives of the appellant. Another ground raised in support of the challenge against sale of the property is that the value obtained is much less than the market value of the land. The sale took place four years back and land value is steadily going up. Therefore, every land owner whose land is sold in Revenue auction will have this complaint because the price for land in Kerala is steadily going up. We do not find any justification to interfere with the sale that took place four years back, that too, under orders of court for recovery of arrears, merely because the land price would have gone up. It is also seen that appellant's
