ABDUL BASHEER K Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the District Collector, in exercise of the power under the proviso to Section 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act, set aside the sale once the sale is confirmed, is the point of dispute. An extent of 0.0324 hectares of land and building situated thereon, belonging to the 5th respondent, was subjected to revenue sale for realisation of amount due to the 4th respondent under a housing loan. The petitioner participated in the sale and turned to be the successful bidder, who remitted 15% of the bid amount of Rs. 50,000 on the same day, i.e. on 30-3-2006. The balance amount was satisfied within 30 days, as prescribed under Section 49(3) of the Revenue Recovery Act, as borne by Ext P-1 receipt. Since there was no complaint from any corner (as no objection was filed either under Section 52 or Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, seeking to set aside the sale), further steps were pursued and the sale was confirmed in the name of the petitioner, as per Ext. P-2 Order dated 28-3-2007 passed by the 2nd respondent.

(2.) Quite after one year of confirmation of sale, as above, the petitioner was served with Ext. P-3 notice dated 3-5-2008 issued by the first respondent, referring to a 'complaint' preferred by the requisitioning authority against the sale. On receipt of Ext. P-3, the petitioner preferred Ext. P-4 objection, specifically pointing out that the petitioner had already satisfied the entire sale consideration; that he had produced 'stamp papers' of the requisite value and that no valid applications were filed by anybody, either under Section 52 or Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act. It was pointed out that the belated application preferred by the 4th respondent, challenging the sale proceedings, was not liable to be entertained and thus sought to pursue further steps for causing registration of the Sale Certificate in the name of the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing both the sides and also on going through the materials on record including the contents of the report called for from the concerned authorities, the first respondent observed that the sale effected by the third respondent was not in conformity with the statutory requirements. Observing that the proceedings suffered much lapses, mistakes and infirmities at the hands of the departmental authorities, the sale was set aside, vide Ext. P-5 Order dated 9-6-2008 and the amount already remitted by the petitioner was ordered to be returned. The petitioner is challenging the said proceedings.