RAGHAVAN Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings by which his property having an extent of 33 cents in Survey No.403/3 of Block 54 of Melukavu Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam District, was sold in auction under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short, the 'Act').

(2.) It is stated that the petitioner's wife had filed various petitions before the Magistrate Court, Erattupetta and obtained an order of maintenance against the petitioner herein. Since the petitioner did not remit the maintenance as ordered by the Magistrate Court, Erattupetta, distress warrants were issued for the attachment and sale of the petitioner's above-referred property. It is stated that the auction sale was conducted on 28/4/2004 and the 4th respondent herein was the successful bidder for an amount of Rs.36,750.00. It is further alleged that, on the date of the sale, no one was present to participate in the auction and the auction had not taken place. The petitioner, in such circumstances, filed W.P.(C) No.29959 of 2004 challenging the auction sale conducted. This writ petition was admitted by an order dtd. 12/10/2024, produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. As regards the prayer for stay made in the said writ petition, this Court ordered that "confirmation of sale, if any, will be subject to the result of the writ petition". Later, it is alleged that the counsel who filed the above writ petition went abroad without entrusting the case files to anyone, on account of which, there was no representation when W.P.(C) No.29954 of 2004 was taken up for final hearing. On account of this, the above writ petition happened to be dismissed for default by a judgment dtd. 14/12/2006. The petitioner has pointed out that he later deposited the full amount covered by the distress warrants issued by the Magistrate Court, Erattupetta with the Family Court at Ettumanoor as evidenced by Ext.P3 series of orders. The petitioner also obtained Ext.P4 letter from the Family Court, Kottayam, addressed to the 2nd respondent herein, pointing out that since the entire dues have been paid by the petitioner, the distress warrants issued may be returned forthwith. However, even though the petitioner could remit the land tax in 2009, he was not permitted to remit the land tax subsequently. In reply to a complaint in that regard placed before the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P6 dtd. 27/6/2011 informing that the property concerned has already been sold in auction in favour of the 4th respondent herein on 28/4/2004, and the sale was confirmed on 21/4/2007. It is also informed to the petitioner that, mutation with respect to the said property in favour of the 4th respondent is also carried out. The petitioner has also produced the order of confirmation of sale in favour of the 4th respondent herein dtd. 30/4/2007 as Ext.P7 in the writ petition. In such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging Exts.P6 and P7 referred to above.

(3.) The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this writ petition, mainly pointing out that the confirmation of the sale effected on 28/4/2004 was delayed only on account of the pendency of W.P.(C) No.29959 of 2004. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent also, pointing out that the petitioner is his father, and that the petitioner refused to look after and maintain the 4th respondent and his mother on account of which the petitions were filed before the Magistrate's Court, which ultimately led to the distress warrants, that on the day of the auction sale, altogether four bidders including the 4th respondent were present, that the 4th respondent remitted the bid amount after obtaining loans from various sources etc. The