SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext. P9 order passed by the first respondent, whereby the sale confirmed in the name of the petitioner was set aside invoking the power under S.83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, for infringement of the statutory prescription observing that the mandate under S.49(2), (4) and under S.75 was not compiled with.

(2.) With regard to the facts, it is to be noted that the 7th respondent had availed a loan from the 6th respondent/Kerala Financial Corporation. Since the loan was not repaid, the 6th respondent made a requisition to the Revenue authorities for realization of the amount invoking the provisions under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. In the course of the proceedings, the property owned by the 7th respondent, over which equitable mortgage was created in favour of the 6th respondent, was put to sale and it was effected in favour of the petitioner on 04/08/1999, for a sum of Rs. 1,26,500/-, as against the upset price fixed at Rs.1,20,000/-.

(3.) It is the contention of the petitioner that, there was no objection whatsoever from the part of the 7th respondent to set aside the sale before the statutory authority the 4th respondent invoking the provisions under S.53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Accordingly the sale was confirmed on 01/09/1999 as borne by Ext. P9. Subsequently, certificate of sale was issued on 17/12/1999 and thereafter, mutation was effected incorporating entries in the village records on 01/02/2000. The property was being enjoyed by the petitioner ever since then with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and marketable title, also remitting the basic tax as evident from Ext. P3 receipt. While so, the petitioner sold an extent of 14.18 ares (out of the total extent of 24.6 ares) to the additional 8th respondent, in the year 2000 itself. It is pointed out that, the 7th respondent filed Ext. P4 application dated 29/01/2000 before the 4th respondent for setting aside the Revenue sale under S.53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act; which however was not acted upon by the said respondent. This made the 7th respondent to file various objections before the Ministry for Revenue and such other authorities and finally Ext. P5 communication was issued by the first respondent on 17/11/2003, observing that the grievance projected by the 7th respondent in his petition did not have any merit or bona fides and hence that no interference was called for.