ALEXANDER Vs. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.(C).No.16928 of 2014 was the successful bidder in an auction conducted on 20.01.2010. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.20523 of 2014 is the defaulter, whose properties were brought to sale and who has been impleaded as the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.16928 of 2014. The parties are referred to as per their status in W.P.(C).No.16928 of 2014.

(2.) THE petitioner sought for confirmation of the auction on 22.01.2010 in respect of the subject property, since the entire sale consideration was paid by the petitioner. However, just before the filing of the writ petition, it is seen that the sale conducted on 20.01.2010 was set aside by the 2nd respondent, vide order dated 25.06.2014. Though the 4th respondent submits that an application was filed for setting aside the sale, it is not evident from Exhibit R1(a), which order set aside the sale.

(3.) THE 4th respondent, however, has approached the KFC with an One Time Settlement proposal, which is under consideration by the KFC. The other writ petition, W.P.(C). No.20523 of 2014, filed by the 4th respondent is to direct the KFC to immediately pass orders on the OTS proposal, so that the 4th respondent could save the property from distress. However, it is to be noticed that the setting aside of the sale is under challenge and neither the 4th respondent nor the 1st respondent could act in a manner which would prejudice the petitioner, who has successfully bid in auction and paid the entire amount so bid. 5. In the above circumstances, the KFC is directed to consider the OTS proposal and the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) 16928 of 2014 has to pay the amounts as per the settlement, if any directed by KFC. However, the same shall not be adjusted towards the loan and the same shall be kept in a suspense account. The OTS itself would be subject to the revision filed by the petitioner herein, against setting aside of the sale. If the 4th respondent does not deposit the amounts as per the OTS, the 4th respondent would be disentitled from settling the loan under the OTS scheme. However, the rights on the property would depend on the final decision in the revision filed by the petitioner herein. The writ petitions, hence, are disposed of, directing expeditious disposal of the revision, filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner. For the said purpose, "The Land Revenue Commissioner, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram" is suo motu impleaded as additional 5th respondent in W.P.(C).No.16928 of 2014. Registry shall carry out the impleadment before issuance of the certified copy of the judgment. The additional 5th respondent shall consider Exhibit P6 revision and pass final orders thereon, after affording an opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioner, the 4th respondent and the KFC; within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs. Sd/