The Court quashed orders dismissing revision petitions against setting aside a land sale under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act for perfunctory disposal and remitted the matter for de novo consideration.
Orders extending P10 and P13 are quashed and the matter is remanded to the Land Revenue Commissioner for de novo consideration after notice to parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/28TH KARTHIKA, 1935
WP(C).No. 10427 of 2013 (C)
PETITIONER(S):
A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN, AGED 57 YEARS SON OF GOVINDAN EZHUTHACHAN, 'PRASANTHI' KRISHNA GARDENS, VELLATTU LANE, THRISSUR-680 001
BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE, SC, KFC BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 10427 of 2013 (C)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT P1 | COPY OF THE RECIEPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 21-12-2007 |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.110091810/1700/2008 DATED 18-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10-11-2008. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO.RR/87/99/TSR DATED 26-08-2010 ISSUED BY DEPYTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO.RR/87/99/TSR DATED 30-12-2010 ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO.RR/87/99/TSR DATED 3-3-2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT P7 | COPY OF THE SALE NOTICE NO.RR/87/99/TSR DATED 25-04-2011 ISSUED BY DEPUTY TAHSILDAR(RR),KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT P8 | COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTED 18-06-2011. |
| EXHIBIT P9 | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DYCKFC/261/2011 2689/11 DATED 20-10-2011 OF HE 3RD RESPONDENT. |
| EXHIBIT P10 | COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B7)11739/12 DATED 22-09-2012 0F THE 2ND RESPONDENT |
| EXHIBIT P11 | COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30-10-2012. |
| EXHIBIT P12 | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-12-2012 IN WP(C)28635 OF 2012. |
| EXHIBIT P13 | COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS)NO.120/2013/RD DATD 02-04-2013. |
| EXHIBIT P14 | COPY OF THE REPLY (NO. G4-47602/11 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR DATED 29.04.2013. |
| EXHIBIT P15 | COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. KFC.H.O.REC/852/2013-14 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2013. |
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
V. CHITAMBARESH, J
WP(C) NO. 10427 OF 2013
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The sale conducted on 28.05.2011 under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 was set aside on a petition dated 18.06.2011 filed by the petitioner/defaulter by the third respondent Deputy Collector for the following reasons:
(i) The notice of attachment served
on the petitioner under Section 36 of the Act was only an unsigned copy.
(ii) There is no proof of affixture of
notice under Section 36 (1) of the Act as could be discerned from the report of the village officer.
(iii) The highest offer for 18 lakhs quoted by one M.P. Rajan was not accepted even though the amount demanded was only 12,07,110/-.
2
WP(C) No. 10427/2013
reflect the exact amount due with interest as on that date from the defaulter.
(v) There was no fresh service or publication of notice even though the sale slated on 24.03.2011 was adjourned beyond 60 days to 28.05.2011.
(vi) The property has not been properly valued which contains many valuable trees apart from a building.
been considered either by the second respondent in Ext.P10 order or by the first respondent in Ext.P13 order. Ext.P10 order merely states that the valuation of the property is proper without adverting to any other grounds urged to set aside the auction sale. The relevant files were produced by the Government Pleader which reveals that the petitioner had
filed a petition to set aside the sale as revealed from the endorsement of the third respondent on 20.06.2011. The sale
3
WP(C) No. 10427/2013
was conducted on 28.05.2011 and the petition dated 18.06.2011 and received on 20.06.2011 is certainly within the period of 30 days under Section 53 of the Act. No evidence is placed before me at present to show that such a petition dated 18.06.2011 was inter polated in the files by the third respondent at a later point of time as is suggested by the fifth respondent auction purchaser. There is no justification at all for the second respondent in casting aspersions on the third respondent in making an endorsement of receipt of the petition dated 18.06.2011 on 20.06.2013.
“Provided that if the Collector has reason to think that the sale ought to be set aside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale.”
4
WP(C) No. 10427/2013
The first respondent has in Ext.P13 order observed as follows:
“But besides the initials of the Deputy Collector RR dated 20.06.2011 in the objection petition no other material evidence was produced by the office of the Deputy Collector (RR) or by the revision petitioner”.
In fact material evidence should have been produced by the fifth respondent to show that no such petition was ever filed by the petitioner even though the same may not be relevant under the proviso to Section 54 of the Act.
5
WP(C) No. 10427/2013
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE
ncd
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitions dismissing the petition to set aside the sale were disposed of perfunctorily without addressing grounds of unsigned notice and lack of valuation.
Whether the third respondent erred in not setting aside the sale under Section 54 despite no application being made.
Whether the respondents properly considered all grounds for setting aside the auction sale before dismissing the revision petitions.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
A.G.RAVINDRANATHAN
STATE OF KERALA
THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (REVENUE RECOVERY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION
C.C.LONAPPAN
V. CHITAMBARESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
