MANDOOR ALI Vs. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner availed of a loan of Rupees five lakhs from the Kerala State Housing Board for constructing a residential building in the year 1999. It is stated that the amount was to be repaid in 108 monthly instalments of Rs. 9850/-. The rate of interest of the loan was 18.25%. The petitioner defaulted to pay the amount. Therefore, the Housing Board initiated revenue recovery steps. The Tahsildar, Kannur issued Ext. P1 notice proposing to sell the property in public auction on 18.10.2005. There was a news item in the newspapers regarding the sale on 17.10.2005. The petitioner submits that on the said date no sale took place. Some persons came and waited till the afternoon and thereafter they went away.

(2.) The petitioner approached this Court and this Court by Ext. P2 judgment directed the Housing Board to extend the benefit of One Time Settlement scheme to the petitioner and in case he fails to clear the arrears on or before 31.12.2005 it was also directed that the petitioner shall hand over possession of the building to the Housing Board. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

(3.) On coming to know that the Tahsildar created some documents to the effect that the building was sold to the 5th respondent on 18.10.2005, the petitioner filed Ext. P3 representation to the first respondent on 1.1.2006. But without considering Ext. P3 the Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext. P4 order confirming the sale on 21.3.2006. Later he was served with Ext. P5 communication stating that as the petitioner has failed to file any objection against the sale within one month and as he was not present at the place of sale, his objection cannot be considered. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts. P4 and P5. He also seeks a direction to the revenue recovery officials to reauction the building. Petitioner attacks the sale on several grounds. According to him, the sale was made for a pittance. Though the upset price fixed by the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board was Rs. 8.5 lakhs it was sold for Rs. 6.32 lakhs. The market value of the land and building would come to atleast Rs.10 lakhs. There was no proper publication of the sale in terms of the relevant provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore, the sale is vitiated. According to him, no sale took place on 18.10.2005. All the documents to that effect are cooked up by the Tahsildar. The Revenue Divisional Officer has not considered his objection dated 1.1.2006. He has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under S.54 of the Revenue Recovery Act while considering the question of confirmation of sale.