ABDUL SALAM Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An extent of land, ad-measuring 8 cents, comprised in Sy.No.138/2A in Pullipadam Village in Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District belonging to the fourth respondent was brought to sale in revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the Canara Bank. Petitioner being the successful bidder, the sale was confirmed in his name and possession certificate issued. After protracted litigation at the instance of the fourth respondent, the Government issued Ext.P10 order setting aside the sale and directing return of the purchase value remitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P10 and the consequential directions.

(2.) The short facts, leading up to the issuance of Ext.P10, are as follows: The fourth respondent availed a loan from the Canara Bank by mortgaging his property as security and defaulted in repayment, causing the Bank to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of Rs.3,72,985/-. Demand notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were served on the fourth respondent on 08.11.2011. Since the notices failed to evoke any positive response, the sale was proceeded with and action taken under Section 49(2) of the Act. The fourth respondent filed O.S.No.200 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Manjeri and obtained a decree, granting him six months from 06.03.2012 to clear the dues. Thereupon, revenue recovery proceedings was deferred till 08.08.2012. Since the fourth respondent failed to remit the amount within the time granted by the civil court, the revenue sale was fixed for 20.11.2012. On finding that the entire extent of land was not required for clearing the dues, a lesser extent of 8 cents was notified for sale on 15.01.2013. The upset price was fixed at Rs.8 lakhs, at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per cent. Petitioner's offer of Rs.8,59,000/- being the highest, the bid was confirmed in his name. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.1,28,850/- on the same day, being 15% of the bid amount. In spite of service of notice as contemplated under Section 49 , requiring the fourth respondent to clear the dues within 30 days of the sale, he failed to remit the amount and hence, the petitioner deposited the balance 85% of the purchase price, i.e., Rs.7,30,150/- and by Ext.P3 order dated 25.10.2014, sale was confirmed in his name. Thereafter, absolute possession of the land was given to the petitioner on 10.11.2014 and his name published as title holder of the property in the Gazette dated 16.12.2014.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent approached the Government directly and obtained Ext.P6 order dated 14.02.2013 staying the revenue recovery proceedings, subject to the fourth respondent paying 10% of the arrear amount before 14.03.2013 and the balance in 40 equal monthly instalments. The fourth respondent did not comply with the condition and instead, chose to challenge the sale by filing revision before the third respondent under Section 83(1) of the Act. Ext.P7 interim order of stay was issued in the revision on 07.03.2013. Later, the revision petition itself was dismissed by order dated 02.08.2014. Challenging the dismissal, the fourth respondent preferred further revision before the Government under Section 83(2) of the Act. The Government allowed that revision vide Ext.P8 order dated 05.06.2015 and granted three months time to the fourth respondent to pay off the entire arrears. Petitioner challenged Ext.P8 before this Court in W.P.(C).No.20955 of 2015 and by Ext.P9 judgment dated 09.03.2016, Ext.P8 order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Government for fresh consideration. Thereupon, the Government, by Ext.P10 order, once again set aside the sale.