SYED MEERA LEVAI Vs. ASST COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had been assessed for Agricultural Income tax, for the years 1984-85 to 1990-91, for a total sum of Rs. 66,996/-. Against the assessment orders, he had filed appeals as AITA Nos. 108 to 114 of 1994 before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam. In the appeals interim orders had been passed staying the assessments on a condition and Ext. P2 shows that the condition prescribed had been satisfied by payment. But when the appeals were finally taken up for hearing, there were no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the appeals were consequently dismissed for default. Thereafter, proceedings for realisation of the amount assessed had been initiated without his knowledge and the petitioners properties came to be attached and put for sale.

(2.) He only learnt that the revenue sale was carried out some time in March, 1999 and by Ext. P4 the petitioner was given notice that he is at liberty to move for setting aside the sale on remitting the entire amount payable within 30 days from the date of sale. The notice was dated 3.3.1999. The petitioner states that it was received on 20.3.1999. It is also averred that Ext. P5 representation had been forwarded by the petitioner objecting to the confirmation of the sale and pointing out that the sale is vitiated. In the meanwhile, the petitioner had moved the Appellate Authority for restoration of the appeals by setting aside the dismissal for default. Ext. P3 shows that the appeals were restored to file, by order dated 8.3.1999. However, before that, on 26.2.1999 auction had been conducted and the properties stood sold. By notice dated 3.1.2000 (Ext. P6), the Assistant Collector, Devikulam informed the petitioner that the sale stood confirmed. It was also pointed out that no application under S.52 or 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act had been received in the office for setting aside the sale and that is the reason for confirmation.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit showing the details of the action and it is submitted that Ext. P2 had not been received by the authority and it was to be understood that the petitioner had not objected to the confirmation of the sale. The third respondent, who was the auction purchaser, had also filed a counter affidavit. He states that he had moved the authorities for getting possession of the land. There was delay in confirmation and so he had filed a claim before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki demanding return of the money in deposit or confirmation of the sale in his favour. It is also seen from Ext. R3(c) that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, by order dated 24.9.1999, directed that the amount in deposit made by the third respondent should be returned with interest or the property should be transferred in the name of the third respondent. The Government, obviously had taken the latter course and the confirmation order has been passed in the above said context. But no steps had been taken for giving possession.