JISHA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (RR), THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., VILLAGE OFFICER AND THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a defaulter to the KFC. In the revenue recovery proceedings initiated Ext.P2 sale notice was published proposing to sell the property attached on 17.2.2012. However, that sale was postponed for want of bidders and now Ext.P10 notice has been issued proposing to sell the property on 9.11.2012. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that in the proceeding to sell the property as proposed in Ext.P10, there is non compliance of Section 49(4) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 49(4) to the extent it is relevant provides that if sale is adjourned for a period beyond 60 days, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale. In other words what the petitioner says is that since the sale in question is taking place beyond 60 days of the date specified in Ext.P2 notice, fresh proceedings should commence from the stage of Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act.

(3.) Having considered the submission I am unable to agree with the counsel. In my view a reading of Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act shows that if the adjourned sale is beyond the 60 days of the date of original sale, fresh notice to be served shall be as provided in Section 49 itself. If that be so, Ext.P10 notice of sale will satisfy the requirements. In such circumstances, I do not find anything illegal in Ext.P10.