AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. THANKAMMA PARAMESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. THEy question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions--O.P. Nos. 2925 and 2929 of 1979--whereunder the learned judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. THE reason as given by the learned judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not, therefore, belong to the defaulter at the time of the sale and that the revenue sale without reckoning the earlier private sale in favour of the petitioners was void.

(2.) THE correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), particularly Section 44 thereof.

(3.) THE facts of the case clearly established that the private sales in favour of the petitioners were effected after the service of notice of demand under the Act on the defaulter as referred to in Section 44. According to the Revenue, the private sales so effected after service of the demand notice came within the mischief of the section and consequently were denuded of any efficacy whatever. THE contention of the petitioners has been pointedly dealt with and answered in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. THE relevant passage can be usefully extracted: