UTHUPPU MATHAI Vs. TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in O.P. No. 323/1956 on the file of this Court is the appellant. He had an Abkari contract under the State and for the defaulted amounts due from him under that contract, 25. 25 cents of his property and the buildings standing thereon were attached and sold under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, Act VII of 1951. The sale was held on 13-9 -1956 and in the absence of strangers to bid at the auction, the Tahsildar who conducted the sale proceedings, bid the property on behalf of the State for a nominal amount of one anna. Ext. A contains an account of the sale proceedings. O. P. 323/1956 was filed by the petitioner under Art.226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari setting aside the sale evidenced by Ext. A. The main grounds of attack against the sale are that the sale proceedings were illegal and improper and that the Tahsildar acted without jurisdiction in conducting the sale and himself bidding the property at the auction. The learned Judge who heard the petition came to the conclusion that the several grounds of attack levelled against the sale were all untenable and accordingly he dismissed the petition. The appeal is against that order.

(2.) At the outset we may point out that the petitioner has not stated why he has chosen to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution when the Revenue Recovery Act itself has prescribed the mode in which a sale held under the provisions of that Act could be impeached. S.39 of the Act states that within 30 days of the date of sale the party aggrieved by the sale may apply to the Collector to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting it. By S.55, the Board of Revenue has been empowered to revise the orders passed on the proceedings conducted by a Collector or a Tahsildar. A right of suit is also reserved under S.56 of the Act in favour of the party aggrieved by the proceedings conducted by these Officers under the provisions of the Act. The attitude of the petitioner in ignoring these provisions and seeking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 is an indication of the lack of bona fides on his part. This aspect is seen to have been taken note of by the learned Single Judge who dismissed the petition. That the petition is lacking in good faith is by itself a sufficient ground on which the order dismissing the petition could be sustained.

(3.) On the merits of the petition also we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge that the grounds urged by the petitioner against the validity of the sale are untenable. Even though the petitioner has disputed the correctness of the amount as stated in Ext. A as representing the arrears due from him under the Abkari contract, he has no case that he is not a defaulter under that contract. The Abkari Act (Act IV of 1073) of Travancore under which this contract was entered into, has prescribed the manner in which the amounts due by way of arrears from an Abkari contractor could be realised, S.24 of that Act states that such arrears may be recovered from the defaulting party as if the same were arrears of land revenue. It was on the strength of this provision that the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act were resorted to for the purpose of realising the amount of abkari dues payable by the petitioner. Sales under this Act have to be conducted by the Tahsildar in the manner prescribed by S.36. It was in exercise of the power conferred by this section that the sale evidenced by Ext. A was conducted by the Tahsildar. It follows, therefore, that there is no substance in the petitioners contention that the Tahsildar was acting without jurisdiction in conducting the sale.