S SAROJINI AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal preferred against the impugned judgment dated February 12, 1999 raises a short question for consideration whether the property of the appellant put up for sale on February 23, 1998 can be said to have been acquired by the State Government in view of the provisions of section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (briefly, "the Act" ).

(2.) THE learned Judge, by judgment dated February 12, 1999, held as under : " 4. . . . . . In order to conduct an auction sale, sale notice in form 16 was issued on September 17, 1996 by fixing the sale on October 27, 1996. Petitioner moved the Government and obtained an interim order on condition and accordingly the sale was adjourned. Petitioner did not comply with the conditions. Hence the property was again re-notified for sale on January 25, 1997. Since there were no bidders, the sale did not materialise and was adjourned. Thus there was a proper and sufficient notice for sale for January 25, 1997 and the same was adjourned because there were no bidders. For subsequent sales, notices wee served on the petitioner on December 19, 1996, August 1, 1997, November 3, 1997 and January 23, 1998. For all these sales, the sales did not take place because of the stay orders obtained by the petitioner based on which the sales were adjourned. Finally the sale was posted to February 23, 1998 for which petitioner received notice on February 14, 1998. On February 23, 1998, since there were no bidders in compliance with sub-section (2) of section 50, the property was purchased on behalf of the Government. Thus there were no bidders on January 25, 1997 and February 23, 1998 and therefore the Government is entitled to bid. THEre was no sale subsequent to January 25, 1997 excepting the one on February 23, 1998, though in-between January 25, 1997 and February 23, 1998, there were several sale adjournments and therefore sub-section (2) has been strictly complied with. . . . . . . .

(3.) FROM these facts, it is clearly established that no sale preceded within 60 days from February 23, 1998. The sate dated February 23, 1998, therefore, cannot entitle the Government to acquire the property of the appellant. The property of the appellant sold on February 23, 1998 could be said to have 'been acquired by the Government under section 50 (2) only if there were first sale within the meaning of section 50 (1) within the period of 60 days before February 23, 1998 As no sale was held within 60 days prior to February 23, 1998, sale dated February 23, 1998 would not divest the appellant of her rights in the property.