RATHEESH Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P3. A property consisting of O.40 acres of land in R.S. No. 38/5 of Morazha Amsom, Kanool Desom was put to revenue sale to recover certain arrears due from Smt T.V. Paru Amma, wife of Govindan, Pattuvam Village. That was bid by one Sri. C.K. Nambiar. But, he had defaulted in paying the bid amount. This necessitated the resale of the property in terms of the Revenue Recovery Act. In the resale, the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is stated that the petitioner was put in possession of the property as well. Later the R.D.O. passed Ext. P3, setting aside the resale in favour of the petitioner. The manifest ground on which Ext. P3 has been issued is that the first auction purchaser, namely, C.K. Nambiar was not given a notice regarding the resale. It is also discrernible from Ext. P3, another important ground that the price fetched in the resale was far lower than that quoted by Sri. Nambiar and therefore, adequate value had not been fetched in the reauction . It is based on these reasons, the reauction, in which the petitioner bid had been set aside and fresh steps were directed in Ext. P3.

(2.) Assailing Ext. P3, it is contended by the petitioner that a sale cannot be set aside as done in Ext. P3 without notice to the person, whose bid was accepted. It is also contended that the sale cannot be said to be liable to be set aside on the ground that the earlier defaulted purchaser had not been given notice. A defaulter cannot complain of the violation of principles of natural justice, if at all that is available. Moreover, here in the case of reauction, there arise no question of rendering an opportunity to a defaulter and consequently, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as found in Ext. P3. It is also contended that merely because there was a loss of Rs 70,000/- taking into account the bid amount in the two successive auctions, the sale cannot be set aside as done in Ext. P3. That is not the relevant criteria for setting aside the sale. It is also the contention of the petitioner that S.49(5) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, relied on by the first respondent to pass Ext. P3, does not enable him to pass an order like that.

(3.) The petitioner is well footed in submitting that there is violation of principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned, when the sale in his favour was set aside in Ext. P3. Before setting aside a sale in favour of one person, it is incumbent on the officer who sets the sale aside to hear that party concerned because that affects him with adverse consequences as he had already paid the amount. Necessarily, Ext. P3 is vitiated and is liable to be set aside.