VARKEY JOSEPH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the auction-purchaser at a revenue sale on 18.12.1954 for default in payment of the kist amount by an abkari contractor of 63 3/4 cents of land - Survey Plot Nos. 301/1/30 and 334/3/2 in the Verapuzha Village. His bid for Rs. 925/- being the highest the Tahsildar accepted the same and the petitioner deposited Rs. 138-12-0 on the same day and the balance amount of Rs. 786-4-0 on 15-1-1955. In the normal course the sale would have been confirmed on 18.1.1955.

(2.) THE sale, however, was not confirmed and the reason for the same is given as follows in paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar of the Parur Taluk, who conducted the sale:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that the Collector can set aside a sale under sub-s. (4) only on all or any of the grounds on which a successful application can be made under sub-s. (2), viz., "some material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting" the sale and not on any other ground. I cannot agree. THE proviso to sub-s. (4) clearly indicates that the Collector has wider powers in the matter of setting aside a sale and that in every case in which he has reason to think that a sale ought to be set aside, he can after recording his reasons in writing, do so, whether an application in that behalf had been made by the aggrieved party under sub-s. (2) or not. THE only restriction that is apparently contemplated is that when an application had been made under sub-s. (2) and rejected by him he cannot then set aside the sale on any of the grounds mentioned in that application but only on some other ground which he considers sufficient for the purpose.