CAPTAIN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TAHSILDAR, Aluva, under the provisions of the Kerala revenue Recovery Act attached 13 cents of land in Sy. No. 635/2 of Chowara Village , which belonged to A. G. Sasidharan, Anakkattil Veedu, Chowara Village . The property was attached in order to realise an amount of Rs. 22,594. 50 being the principal and interest due towards toddy workers welfare fund. Auction was earlier conducted on 9. 3. 1994 and the highest bid amount in that auction was rs. 5,500/-Authorised officer who conducted the auction reported that considering the importance of the locality and nearby road, there is a possibility of getting higher amount. It was also cleared that minimum cent age market value of the land in that locality is Rs. 2. 000/-and recommended to conduct re-auction.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, a reaction was conducted on 23. 9. 1994, in which petitioner bid the property for Rs. 10,350/-, which is only Rs. 796. 15 per cent. On reading of the report of the Authorised officer, who conducted auction on 9. 3. 1994 that the minimum centage market value of the land in the locality is Rs. 2,000/-, it is stated the bid amount fetched in the auction conducted on 23. 9. 1994 is very low. It. is also found that the amount due from sasidharan could not be realised, if the second auction is confirmed. Therefore, the auction conducted on 23. 9. 1994 was cancelled by the Sub collector vide his order dated. 30. 3. 1995. Tahsildar, Aluva was then directed to conduct reauction at a early date fixing the upset value of the land at Rs. 2,000/- percent, as reported by the Authorised Officer. A communication was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar vide his letter dated 5. 7. 1996 stating the reason for conducting a reauction, and that the amount deposited by tine petitioner would be returned. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P5 and P6 proceedings.

(3.) IN the instant case, auction was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner. Only if the auction is confirmed, petitioner gets a legal right. Under S. 54 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, on expiration 30 days from the date of sale, if no application to have the sale set aside is made under S. 52 or S. 53, or if any such application has been made and rejected, the Collector shall make an order confirming the sale. It cannot be contended that Collector has no jurisdiction to set aside a sale after a period of 30 days from the date of sale. On the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale, the sale does not become confirmed automatically in case there is no application for setting aside the sale. Only if the Collector makes an order, question of confirmation arises. There cannot be any automatic confirmation under S. 54, unless the Collector makes an order confirming the sale. If the Collector has not made an order confirming the sale, it cannot be said that confirmation is automatic which is never the intention of S. 54. As held by the Supreme Court in lica (P) Ltd, v. Official Liquidator (No. 1), (1996) 85 Com Case 788, the condition of confirmation by the Court operates as a safeguard against the property being sold at an inadequate price whether or not it is a consequence of any irregularity or fraud in the conduct of the sale. Therefore, question of adequacy, or inadequacy, of price is one of the relevant criteria to be taken note of by the revenue authorities when a property is brought to sale. The purpose of an open auction is to get the most remunerative price. It is the duty of the court to keep the auction open so that intending bidders would be free to participate and offer higher prices. If that path were to be closed, the possibility of fraud or underbidding would loom large. Therefore, contention of counsel for the petitioner that whatever might be the sale price, after the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale, sale has automatically become confirmed cannot be sustained.