K.K.SATHYAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to confirm the sale held pursuant to Ext.P1 by the Tahsildar. The challenge is against Ext.P11 communication issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer refusing to confirm the sale on certain pleas.

(2.) THE background of the case is the following: The property involved is 8 cents in extent in Sy. No.54/18A in Chempu Village. The petitioner is the successful bidder in a revenue auction sale conducted by the first respondent on 10.11.2006. The defaulter was an assessee under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which resulted in the revenue recovery proceedings against him. Ext.P1 is the notice of sale dated 30.9.2006. The petitioner offered the highest amount of Rs.53,200.00 and Ext.P2 is the mahazar of auction showing the same. The fourth respondent who is a service co-operative society, challenged the same before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.31790/2006 claiming that they have got first charge over the property, as the same was mortgaged to them by the original owner in the year 2000 as security for a loan availed by him and they have obtained an award under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. The said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment wherein a direction was given to the first respondent to issue the order of sale in favour of the petitioner, to the fourth respondent herein. Another writ petition was filed by the said society, viz. W.P.(C) No.25275/2007 which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment, wherein the direction issued was to consider the representation filed by the petitioner therein in accordance with law, after hearing both parties. The District Collector finally rejected the claim of the 4th respondent holding the view that the State, by virtue of Section 26B of the K.G.S.T. Act, has first statutory charge over the property purchased by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 notice and that the claim, if any, raised by the fourth respondent is only subject to such first charge. This was challenged by the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.317312/007 and Ext.P6 is the copy of the judgment. The said writ petition was allowed setting aside the auction sale in favour of the petitioner with a direction to the first respondent to consider the claim of the fourth respondent for priority over the property purchased by the petitioner in the auction sale. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Appeal No.1062/2008 challenging Ext.P6 judgment and obtained an interim order of stay.

(3.) A reading of Ext.P11 shows that it has been passed after noting the legal opinion obtained from the Additional Government Pleader who opined that sale cannot be confirmed as the same has been set aside in Ext.P6 judgment of the learned Single Judge.