Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 19 May, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 1:
2025:KER:34266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8688 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
SURESH KUMAR
SOBHIT HOUSE, MANGADU CHERRY,
MANGADU VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
BY ADV SRI.LEO GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, 695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOLLAM-691 001.
4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR RR
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,,
KOLLAM-691 001.
5 THE DISTRICT MANAGER
KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,,
KOLLAM-691 001.
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 2:
2025:KER:34266
6 N.KANAKA BOSE
MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, MANGADU,,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM-691 001.
*7 SABU
ATTINGAL HOUSE, MANGAD, KOLLAM.
[*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 7TH RESPONDENT
AS PER ORDER DATED 4.8.2011 IN I.A.NO.12553
OF 2011]
*8 USHAMBIKA
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KANNIMELCHERY, RANDAMKUTTY,
KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004.
9 INNOCENT BOSE
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE,
MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KANNIMELCHERY,
RANDAMKUTTY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691
004.
10 CHINCHU BOSE
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE,
MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, KANNIMELCHERY,
RANDAMKUTTY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691
004.
[*ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 8
TO 10 AS PER ORDER DATED 2.11.2015 IN
I.A.NO.15605/15]
BY ADVS.
R1-3 BY SR.GP SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN
V.PREMCHAND
R8-10 BY SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.R.RENJITH
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SR.
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 3:
2025:KER:34266
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SURYA MOHAN P.
R4-5 BY ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R,SC KFC
DHANYA P.ASHOKAN(K/001671/2000)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).18113/2011, THE
COURT ON 19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 4:
2025:KER:34266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 29TH VAISAKHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18113 OF 2011
PETITIONERS:
1 N.KANAKA BOSE, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.T.R.NANU VYDYAN, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE,,
MANGADU, KILIKOLOOR.P.O., KOLLAM.
*2 USHAMBIKA, AGED 63 YEARS
W/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KANNIMELCHERY, RANDAMKUTTY, KILIKOLLOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004.
3 INNOCENT BOSE
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KANNIMELCHERY, RANDAMKUTTY, KILIKOLLOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004.
4 CHINCHU BOSE
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.LATE N.KANAKABOSE, MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE,
KANNIMELCHERY, RANDAMKUTTY, KILIKOLLOOR,
KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004.
(*ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS ARE IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 02/11/2015 IN IA 15604/15).
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.R.RENJITH
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 5:
2025:KER:34266
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 691 001.
3 THE DEPUTY THAHASILDARREVENUE RECOVERY
KFC, KOLLAM-691 001.
4 KERALA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
KFC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
5 SURESH KUMAR
SOBHIT HOUSE, MANGADU CHERRY, MANGAD
VILLAGE,, KOLLAM-691 004.
BY ADVS.
R 1 TO 3 BY SR.GP SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN
R5 BY SRI.LEO GEORGE
SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN
R4 BY ADV. VENUGOPAL.M.R,SC KFC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FIANALLY
HEARD ON 11.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).8688/2011, THE
COURT ON 19.05.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 6:
2025:KER:34266
JUDGMENT
Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless, otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the documents referred to herein will be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No. 8688 of 2011.
2. The 6th respondent availed a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC), Kollam, in 1995 for the purchase of a fishing boat. Two items of property, one having an extent of 7.05 Ares (17.5 Cents) comprised in Survey No.698/15 and the other having an extent of 25.60 Ares (65 cents) comprised in Survey No.313/21 of Mangad Village, Kollam District, were furnished by the 6th WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 7: 2025:KER:34266 respondent as collateral security for the loan of Rs. 6,25,000/-. The loan amount with interest was to be repaid within a period of 5 years. Since the 6th respondent defaulted repayment of the loan, KFC issued requisition to the revenue authorities in terms of Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short 'RR Act') for realisation of the amounts due to the KFC. In the course of the recovery proceedings, the properties mortgaged by the 6th respondent were put to sale and the sale in respect of 25.60 Ares was effected in favour of the petitioner on 04.08.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- as against the upset price of Rs.1,20,000/-.
3. The petitioner contends that there was no objection whatsoever from the part of the 6 th respondent against the sale and no application to set aside the sale was filed before the District WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 8: 2025:KER:34266 Collector invoking the provisions of Section 53 of the RR Act within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of sale. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed on 01.11.1999 by Ext. P1 order of confirmation issued by the Deputy Collector (RR) under Section 54 of the RR Act. Subsequently, Ext. P2 sale certificate under Section 56 was issued by the Deputy Collector (RR) on 17.12.1999 and mutation was effected in the revenue records on 01.02.2000 as borne out by Ext. P3 tax receipt. The petitioner states that he is enjoying the property ever since. The petitioner sold an extent of 14.18 Ares out of the said property (25.60 Ares) to the additional 7th respondent as per sale deed No.194/2000 of Kilikolloor SRO dated 28.01.2000 and is retaining only the balance extent of 11.42 Ares. It is also stated that the petitioner has made WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 9: 2025:KER:34266 improvements to the property by spending substantial amounts.
4. While so, the 6th respondent filed Ext. P4 application dated 29.01.2000 before the District Collector for setting aside the revenue sale under Section 53 of the RR Act. Since Ext. P4 was not acted upon by the District Collector, the 6 th respondent filed representations dated 26.06.2000, 25.09.2000, 07.03.2001 and 23.07.2001 before the Government and the Minister for Revenue. The Government, vide Ext. P5 order dated 17.11.2003, rejected the 6th respondent's request to set aside the auction sale, stating that although discussions regarding the One-Time Settlement (OTS) were ongoing, the requisitioning authority had not requested that the revenue recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance. Furthermore, the 6 th respondent's WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 10 : 2025:KER:34266 application (Ext. P4) to set aside the sale under Section 53 was not filed within 30 days from the date of sale and, therefore, was not considered by the District Collector. The 6th respondent did not challenge Ext. P5. Later, the 6 th respondent preferred Ext. P6 representation dated 02.11.2005 before the Government and the Government issued Ext. P7 order setting aside the revenue sale. The petitioner challenged Ext. P7 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9386/2007 contending that the same was passed without notice to the petitioner and this Court by Ext. P8 judgment set aside Ext. P7 order and remitted the matter to the Government for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and the 6th respondent and after verifying the records pertaining to the sale of the property. It was also observed that if the sale was WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 11 : 2025:KER:34266 effected in a clandestine manner or any other irregular ways, the Government shall initiate disciplinary action against the persons concerned. This Court also observed that if the Government is not the statutory authority to hear the appeal, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue is the competent authority, the Government should transfer the file to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who must comply with the directions in the judgment.
5. Pursuant to the directions in Ext. P8 judgment, the Government treated Ext. P6 representation as a revision petition under Section 83 (1) of the RR Act and relegated the matter for consideration by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who has been conferred with the power of revision under the Act. The Commissioner of Land WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 12 : 2025:KER:34266 Revenue rejected Ext. P6 revision petition by Ext. P9 order dated 12.06.2008 finding that there is no irregularity in the sale of the property held in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext. P9 order, the 6 th respondent filed revision petition before the Government under Section 83 (2) of the RR Act and the Government by Ext. P10 order dated 30.12.2008 set aside the sale held in favour of the petitioner on 04.08.1999 on the ground that the sale was conducted in breach of the provisions contained in Sections 49 (2) & (4) and 75 (2) of the RR Act.
6. Ext. P10 order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.2706/2009 and this Court, by Ext. P11 judgment dated 11.06.2009, set aside Ext. P10 order and directed the Government to reconsider the entire WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 13 : 2025:KER:34266 issue with specific reference to the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of law in connection with the sale and also on the aspects of the 'delay' as well as the 'substantial injury' stated as caused to the 6th respondent. The operative portion of Ext. P11 judgment [Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala and others (2009 (3) KHC 497: ILR 2009 (3) Ker.
658)] reads as follows:-
"10. Obviously, in the instant case, the sale has been set aside after ten years. Ext. R7(i) petition itself was filed before the Government seeking to set aside the sale after six years. The petitioner is a total stranger, who turned to be the successful bidder in the auction and he was enjoying the said properties to the exclusion of all others and it was in course of such enjoyment, that a portion of the same was sold to the additional 8th respondent for valid, sale WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 14 : 2025:KER:34266 consideration.
11. With regard to the question of delay, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though there is a provision (sub-section 3 of Section 83) to condone the same, necessary application had to be filed within 90 days as prescribed. Power is of course vested with the Land Revenue Commissioner or the Government, as the case may be, if is satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within that period and to have the matter dealt with on merits. But in the instant case, what was the reason for the delay of 'six years' for submitting Ext. R7(i) application to set aside the sale is not discernible from Ext. P9 order passed by the first respondent. This being the position, the observation of the first respondent in Ext. P9 order that the sale is liable to be set aside in view of the alleged violation in WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 15 : 2025:KER:34266 publication of the notice and for non compliance with the procedure as contemplated under Section 49(2)(4) r/w Section 75 cannot be sustained; for having exercised the jurisdiction without recording satisfaction on the question of delay and without arriving at a finding on the 'substantial injury' allegedly caused to the 7th respondent.
12. It is pointed out that the 'proper application to set aside the sale was Ext. R7(i) dated 02/11/2005, based on which Ext. P6 order was passed setting aside the sale. Pursuant to Ext.
P7 judgment to have the matter reconsidered, when Ext. P8 order was passed by the first respondent, the application referred to therein is of '25/09/2000'. It is the original application which led to the rejection of the claim as stated in Ext. P5 issued by the Government on 17/11/2003. It is pointed out from the part of the first respondent, as well as the 7th respondent, that when the matter was WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 16 : 2025:KER:34266 directed to be reconsidered by this Court vide Ext. P7 judgment, the Government had to consider the whole issue. It was in the said circumstances that, the above petition was considered as to whether the sale was to be set aside or not. More so when, both the above petitions (original petition dated 25/09/2000, as well as the subsequent petition dated 02/11/2005) have been specifically referred to at serial Nos. '4 and 12' in Ext. P6 order passed earlier; which however was set aside as per Ext. P7 judgment passed by this Court, directing to have the matter reconsidered.
13. In the above circumstances, Ext.
P9 is set aside and the first respondent is directed to consider the entire issue with specific reference to the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of the law in connection with the sale and also on the aspects of the 'delay' as well as the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 17 : 2025:KER:34266 'substantial injury' stated as caused to the 7th respondent. Final orders shall be passed as above, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties including the petitioner and respondents 6 to 8. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. "
7. Pursuant to the direction in Ext. P11 judgment, the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department passed Ext. P12 order confirming Ext. P10 order. The relevant portion of Ext. P12 reads as follows:-
'On verification of the connected reports and records the alleged violation of the provisions of law in the sale of the property is seen established. In the circumstances Government order to confirm GO (MS) No.450/08/RD dated 30.12.08 and the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 18 : 2025:KER:34266 District Collector, Kollam shall take further action following due procedures.'
8. Ext. P12 order was set aside by this Court by Ext. P13 judgment observing that the same is cryptic and passed without application of mind and not in compliance with the directions in Ext. P11 judgment. This Court directed the Government to pass fresh orders in strict compliance with the directions in Ext. P11 judgment.
9. Pursuant to the directions in Ext. P13 judgment to take fresh decision, the Chief Secretary to Government authorised the Law Secretary to hear and dispose of the matter. The Law Secretary heard the matter on 08.12.2010 pursuant to Ext. P14 notice of hearing. Later, the Chief Secretary recalled his earlier order and disposed of the matter WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 19 : 2025:KER:34266 himself on 05.03.2011, as per Ext. P15. By Ext. P15, the Government found that the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 suffers from serious irregularities and is vitiated and set aside the sale and ordered sale to be conducted afresh as per law. The relevant portion of Ext. P15 reads as follows:
"6. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was informed or that he was aware of the auction sale proposed to be conducted on 04.08.1999 before it took place or at least before its confirmation. On the other hand it is borne out form records that there were negotiations between the petitioner and Kerala Financial Corporation during the above period for a one time settlement and he was asked to appear for discussion on 09.09.1999 and 08.12.1999 and he met the officials on such dates. In the above context, the version of appellant that he came to know of the sale on 30.12.1999 is believable. Since there was no due notice WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 20 : 2025:KER:34266 and publication regarding the said sale on 04.08.1999 and the petitioner was unaware of such sale till 30.12.1999, the petition filed under Section 53, though beyond 30 days of sale, should have been considered by the District Collector. There was a total abdication of his duty which led to substantial injury to the petitioner.
7. From the records, it is found that the petitioner had filed innumerable representations before the Hon'ble Minister and Government. He filed such representation on 17.01.2000, 18.01.2000, 26.06.2000, 25.09.2000, 07.03.2001, 23.07.2001, 08.12.2003 etc. The Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue) intimated the petitioner by letter dated 17.11.2003, after referring to such petitions, that the request of the petitioner has been rejected. It is strongly argued by the respondent that the above order has not been challenged by the petitioner and so it has become final and therefore the subsequent Revision is not maintainable.
8. The Government can exercise its WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 21 : 2025:KER:34266 power only on the order of the Board of Revenue, which has been substituted by Land Revenue Commissioner. The petitioner then filed a petition before the Government on 02.11.2005. As per G.O (Rt) No.3303/06 dated 05.07.2006, the sale was set aside, against which first respondent filed WP(C) No. 9386/07 before the Hon'ble High Court. As per judgment dated 10.07.2007, the Hon'ble High Court ordered that if 2nd respondent Secretary is not the statutory authority to hear appeal and Land Revenue Commissioner is the Authority, 2nd respondent should transfer the file to Land Revenue Commissioner who will follow the directions as if those are issued to him. In pursuance of the above judgment, the Land Revenue Commissioner considered the matter and passed an order dated 12.06.2008 holding that the sale is proper and legal. In the light of the judgment in WP(c) No. 9386/2007 and subsequent order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, the question of delay in filing any application under Section 83 (1) cannot WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 22 : 2025:KER:34266 arise. Even otherwise, in the absence of any order on the application filed under Section 53 of the Act, there was no possibility for the petitioner to file a Revision Petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner.
9. In pursuance of the judgment in WP(c) No 9386/07, the Land Revenue Commissioner passed order dated 12.06.2008 against which the petitioner filed Revision petition on 11.07.2008 under Section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Government have considered the above Revision and set aside the sale vide order dated 30.12.2008. The above application under Section 83(2) is seen filed within time. In the light of the above facts, it is found that the Revision now being considered is perfectly maintainable and there is no delay in filing the said revision.
10. As per Section 49(4) of Revenue Recovery Act, if the postponed sale is beyond 60 days of the original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale. In the case on WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 23 : 2025:KER:34266 hand the above provision has not been followed. Moreover, no notice has been served on the petition also. This has resulted in serious injury. Further there is infraction of Section 75 of the Act also.
11. The petitioner would assail the sale by alleging that the value of the property shown as well as the consideration for which it was sold was very low and that the sale has been conducted in a clandestine and collusive manner. The upset price for this 65 cents is shown as 1,20,000/- only. The property has been sold for an amount of Rs.1,26,500/-. The fact that this property along with another extent of 7.05 Ares was offered as security for a loan of Rs.6,25,000/- assumes importance in this context. From the records, it is found that even as per the valuation made by the Kerala Financial Corporation, the value of the property as on 23.03.2000 was Rs.
3,16,250/-. The sequence of events
would indicate that the sale on
04.08.1999 is surrounded by a thick cloud of suspicion. It was done while a WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 24 : 2025:KER:34266 settlement talk was under way. It is clear that the property has been sold for a price which is far below the actual value. Moreover, the petitioner was kept in dark regarding the said sale. It is settled law that rules of procedure is intended to import substantive justice. The petitioner is only a layman and while interacting with officials, such persons may not be equipped with sufficient legal support and the minor irregularities and infirmities in not filing proper applications before proper authorities should not stand in the way of imparting substantial justice. There are materials to indicate that there was a covert attempt in conducting the auction without proper publication and notice. Inspite of the fact that there were no bidders on two or three occasions, not steps were taken to make publication of the proposed sale on 04.08.1999. In view of the above it is seen that the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 suffers from serious irregularities and it is vitiated and so the same is liable to be set aside.
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 25 : 2025:KER:34266
12. In the circumstances, Government hereby order that the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 is set aside and a fresh sale shall be conducted as per law. The District Collector shall take necessary steps accordingly."
10. Ext. P15 order is impugned contending that it is passed without considering the directions in Ext. P11 judgment of this Court. According to the petitioner, this Court in Ext. P11 judgment directed the Government to consider the entire issue with specific reference to the alleged violation of the relevant provisions of the law in connection with the sale and also on the aspects of the delay as well as the substantial injury stated as caused to the 6 th respondent. However, it is contended that these aspects were not considered by the Government in Ext. P15. The petitioner contends that under Section 53 of the RR Act, a sale can be set aside on WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 26 : 2025:KER:34266 the ground of material irregularity only if material irregularity has caused substantial injury to the applicant. However, in Ext. P15, there is no finding that non- compliance with the provisions of the Act, if any, has caused substantial injury to the 6th respondent. It is contended that Ext. P6 revision petition was filed only 6 years after the sale. The Commissioner of Land Revenue can entertain a revision petition against orders passed under the Act only if it is filed within 90 days from the date of the order. Therefore, the Commissioner of Land Revenue ought not to have treated Ext. P6 as a revision petition and ought to have dismissed it as barred by limitation. According to the petitioner, the sale was adjourned to 26.05.1999, 16.06.1999, 19.07.1999 and 04.08.1999 for want of bidders. The sale took place on 04.08.1999. It is contended WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 27 : 2025:KER:34266 that as per Section 49 (4) of the Act, fresh notice of sale need be published only if the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale. At no point of time was the sale adjourned beyond 60 days from the date on which it was originally scheduled. Therefore, it is contended that the finding in Ext. P15 regarding non-compliance with Section 49(4) of the RR Act is unsustainable. The petitioner also contends that there is no infraction of Section 75(2) of the Act inasmuch as the sale notice was published in Mathrubhoomi daily. It is further contended that the finding in Ext. P15 that the 6 th respondent was not aware of the sale held on 04.08.1999 and the District Collector ought to have considered Ext. P4 petition of the 6th respondent under Section 53 after 30 days of sale is unsustainable as an application to set aside the sale WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 28 : 2025:KER:34266 has to be filed within 30 days and there is no provision to condone the delay in filing the application. It is also contended that, in Ext. P8 judgment, this Court only directed consideration of the revision petition according to law and therefore the Commissioner of Land Revenue was bound to consider the question of delay in filing the revision petition.
11. This Court admitted W.P (C) No.8688 of 2011 on 21.03.2011 and stayed further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P15.
12. W.P.(C) No. 18113 of 2011 is filed by the 6th respondent challenging Ext. P16 order therein (Ext. P15 in W.P.(C) No. 8688 of 2011), insofar as it directs the conduct of a fresh sale. A direction is also sought to the Government to order re- WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 29 : 2025:KER:34266 conveyance of the property to the 6th respondent on remitting the entire outstanding dues towards the KFC. It is contended that the Government, having observed that there was a covert attempt to conduct the auction without proper publication and notice, and that the sale suffered from serious irregularities and was vitiated, ought not to have merely ordered a fresh sale. It is also contended that when the Government found that irreparable injury and damage had been caused to the 6th respondent by selling the property for a meager amount, it ought to have ordered re-conveyance of the property to the 6th respondent. Though the 6th respondent has preferred Ext. P17 review petition against Ext. P15 order of the Government, the same has not been considered by the Government.
13. A statement has been filed by the 1 st WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 30 : 2025:KER:34266 respondent Government in W.P (C) No. 8688 of 2011 wherein it is stated that the auction sale was adjourned to 26.05.1999, 16.06.1999, 19.07.1999 and 04.08.1999 for want of bidders. It is further stated that as per the records, the auction sale notices except the first one, were not issued in Form 16 as provided under Section 49 (2) of the RR Act. The statement refers to the report of Deputy Collector (Vigilance), based on which the Government considered Ext. P6. In the report, it is stated that although the sale notice was issued for two adjacent plots mortgaged, only the plot having extent of 25.60 Ares was sold without any recorded reason for excluding the remaining 7.05 Ares. It was further reported that the procedure mandated under Section 49(2) of the RR Act was not properly followed, particularly with regard to the publication WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 31 : 2025:KER:34266 and content of the sale notice. The property was sold for a meager amount of Rs. 1,26,500/- and the required procedures for serving and publishing notices, including the issuance of a fresh notice when the adjourned sale date exceeded 60 days, were not followed. It was also reported that the sale, confirmation, and issuance of the sale certificate were done in undue haste, raising serious concerns about the fairness and legality of the process. The statement further states that Section 75(2) of the RR Act, which requires the Collector or authorized officer to publish sale notices in the Gazette or newspapers, was not properly followed and although the KFC published a general auction notice in Mathrubhumi daily on 24.11.1999 (sic), it included several other revenue recovery cases. It is stated that the auction was adjourned multiple WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 32 : 2025:KER:34266 times due to lack of bidders, likely caused by insufficient publicity, which the authorities should have ensured proper newspaper publication to attract bidders. It is further stated that there is nothing on record to show that the 6th respondent was informed of, or was aware of, the auction sale proposed to be conducted on 04.08.1999, either before it took place or at least before its confirmation. On the contrary, the records indicate that there were negotiations between the 6 th respondent and the KFC during the said period for a one-time settlement and the version of the 6 th respondent that he came to know of the sale only on 30.12.1999 appears believable. Finally, it is stated that since there was no due notice or publication regarding the sale conducted on 04.08.1999, and the 6th respondent was unaware of WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 33 : 2025:KER:34266 the sale until 30.12.1999, his application filed under Section 53, though beyond 30 days from the date of sale, ought to have been considered by the District Collector.
14. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 6 th respondent in W.P (C) No. 8688 of 2011, traversing the averments in the writ petition. It is stated that the sale was conducted on 04.08.1999 while discussions for a One Time Settlement were ongoing with KFC. As per Ext. R6(a) telegram, the 6th respondent was asked to appear on 09.09.1999 at the head office of KFC at Vellayambalam for discussions on the OTS. By Ext. R6(b) telegram, he was again asked to appear for further discussions on 18.12.1999. On 30.12.1999, he came to know that the property had already been sold on 04.08.1999 for Rs. 1,26,500/-. Though he WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 34 : 2025:KER:34266 approached the authorities with representations, there was no response. It is further stated that the property is situated adjacent to the NH-47 Kollam City Bypass Road. The 6th respondent has produced Exts. R6(f) and R6(g) communications issued by the KFC and the District Collector, respectively to show that the valuation of the 65 cents of land, as assessed by the KFC itself, was Rs.3,16,250/-.
15. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the KFC in W.P (C) No. 8688 of 2011 wherein it is stated that the 6th respondent defaulted repayment of loan and the matter was referred for revenue recovery and the revenue authorities initiated recovery proceedings and auctioned one of the mortgaged security admeasuring 25.60 Ares for Rs. 1,26,500/- on 04.08.1999 and the sale proceeds after deducting the collection charges were adjusted WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 35 : 2025:KER:34266 to the outstandings in the loan account of the 6 th respondent. It is stated that during August 1999, the 6th respondent had approached the KFC for OTS. Further compromise offers were not considered due to the pendency of the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and the 6th respondent.
16. A counter affidavit has been filed in W.P (C) No. 8688 of 2011 on behalf of the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Land Revenue, along similar lines as the statement filed by the Government, with the addition that the records indicate that the notice dated 20.07.1999 for the auction sale scheduled on 04.08.1999 was issued on the same day, 20.07.1999.
17. In W.P.(C) No. 18113 of 2011, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 36 : 2025:KER:34266 in line with the statement filed in W.P.(C) No. 8688 of 2011, with the addition that Ext. P17 review petition cannot be considered by the Government as there is no provision in the RR Act to review an order passed under Section 83 (2) of the Act.
18. During the pendency of the captioned writ petitions, the 6th respondent passed away on 15.08.2015. As per orders dated 02.11.2015, this Court, on applications, impleaded the legal heirs of the 6th respondent as additional respondents 8 to 10 in W.P.(C) No. 8688 of 2011 and as additional petitioners 2 to 4 in W.P.(C) No. 18113 of 2011.
19. On 21.02.2017, the learned counsel on both sides sought time to explore the possibility of settlement as a last attempt and the cases were adjourned. On 08.03.2022, this Court, after hearing WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 37 : 2025:KER:34266 the matter for some time, observed that the writ petitions can be settled through mediation. Accordingly, the matters were referred for mediation before the High Court Mediation Centre. The Mediator has submitted a report dated 30.05.2022 reporting that the matters are not settled.
20. Heard Sri. Leo George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.R.Ranjith, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and additional respondents 8 to 10, Sri. V. Premchand, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent, Sri. M.R. Venugopal, the learned standing counsel for KFC and the learned Government pleader.
21. W.P.(C) No. 8688 of 2011 seeks to quash Ext. P15, while W.P.(C) No. 18113 of 2011 seeks to WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 38 : 2025:KER:34266 quash Ext. P15 to the extent it directs a fresh sale. Therefore, this Court is called upon to consider the legality of Ext. P15.
22. The findings of the Government in Ext. P15 can be summarised as follows:
(i) The petitioner was not informed about the auction sale scheduled for 04.08.1999, either before it took place or before its confirmation. The records show that, during this period, the petitioner was simultaneously engaged in settlement negotiations with the KFC and was called for discussions on 09.09.1999 and 08.12.1999, which he attended. This makes the petitioner's claim that he became aware of the sale only on 30.12.1999, believable.
(ii). Since there was no proper notice or publication regarding the sale held on 04.08.1999, the petitioner remained unaware of the sale until 30.12.1999.
(iii). The District Collector failed to WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 39 : 2025:KER:34266 consider the petitioner's application filed under Section 53 of the RR Act, even though it was filed beyond 30 days from the date of sale. There was a total abdication of duty on the part of the District Collector which led to substantial injury to the petitioner.
(iv). As per Section 49(4) of the RR Act, if the postponed sale is scheduled beyond 60 days from the original sale, fresh notice must be served and published as if it were the original sale. In the case on hand, this provision has not been followed.
(v). There was also an infraction of Section 75 of the RR Act.
(vi). As per Ext. P8 judgment, this Court directed that if the Government is not the statutory authority to hear the appeal and the Land Revenue Commissioner is the competent authority, the Government shall transfer the file to the Land Revenue Commissioner, who shall comply with the directions as if they were issued to him. In pursuance of the above judgment, the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 40 : 2025:KER:34266 Land Revenue Commissioner considered the matter and passed Ext. P9 order, holding that the sale was proper and legal. In light of the Ext. P8 judgment and the subsequent order of the Land Revenue Commissioner, the question of delay in filing any application under Section 83(1) does not arise.
(vii). In the absence of any order on Ext. P4 application filed under Section 53 of the RR Act, the petitioner had no opportunity to file a revision petition under Section 83(1) before the Commissioner for Land Revenue.
(viii). The petitioner filed the revision petition under Section 83(2) with the Government against the order of the Commissioner for Land Revenue within the prescribed time, and it is maintainable.
(ix).The property, with an upset price of Rs.1,20,000/-, was sold for only ₹1,26,500/-, which is significantly lower than the KFC's own valuation of Rs.3,16,250/- as on 23.03.2000. This WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 41 : 2025:KER:34266 property, along with an another extent of 7.05 ares, had been offered as security for a loan of ₹6,25,000/-. The sequence of events indicate that the auction held on 04.08.1999 was conducted under suspicious circumstances, particularly as it took place while settlement talks were underway and the 6th respondent was kept uninformed.
(x). There are clear indications of a covert attempt to conduct the auction without proper publication and notice, despite the fact that there were no bidders on three occasions.
(xi). The sale conducted on 04.08.1999 suffers from serious irregularities and is vitiated and is liable to be set aside."
23. The 6th respondent availed loan from KFC by creating an equitable mortgage over his two properties. He defaulted repayments and the District Collector initiated revenue recovery proceedings at the request of KFC. A notice dated WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 42 : 2025:KER:34266 25.03.1999 under Section 49 (2) of the RR Act was issued to the 6th respondent informing that the two items of property will be sold by public auction on 12.05.1999. The auction did not take place on 12.05.1999 for want of bidders. Later notice dated 13.05.1999 was issued to the 6th respondent informing that properties will be sold by public auction on 26.05.1999. On that day also, the sale did not take place. By letter dated 27.05.1999, the 6th respondent was informed that the sale will be held on 16.06.1999. Later, another notice was issued to the 6th respondent stating that the property will be sold by public auction on 19.07.1999. The said sale was also adjourned for want of bidders. The 6th respondent was later issued with notice dated 20.07.1999 informing that the auction sale will be conducted on 04.08.1999. The WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 43 : 2025:KER:34266 sale was conducted on 04.08.1999 and the petitioner, the highest bidder, purchased the property having extent of 25.60 Ares. The auction in respect of 07.05 Ares was adjourned for want of bidders. The Deputy Collector (RR) confirmed the sale on 01.11.1999 as per Ext. P1 order and issued Ext. P2 sale certificate under Section 56 of the RR Act on 17.12.1999.
24. Section 49 of the RR Act deals with procedure for sale of immovable property and Section 75 deals with mode of publication of notices. The Section 49 as it stood prior to Amendment Act 17 of 2024 reads as follows:
"49. Procedure for sale of immovable property.- Immovable property attached under this Act may be sold in accordance with the following provisions, namely: (1) The sale shall be by public auction to the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 44 : 2025:KER:34266 highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector or the authorised officer having jurisdiction over the village in which the property is situate.
(2) Previous to the sale, the Collector or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall issue a notice thereof in English and in Malayalam and also in the language of the locality where such language is not Malayalam, specifying -
(i) the name of the defaulter;
(ii) the position and extent of the land and of his buildings and other known improvements thereon;
(iii) the amount of revenue assessed on the land, or upon its different sections;
(iv) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered;
(v) the proportion of the public revenue due during the remainder of the current financial year; and
(vi) the time, place and conditions of sale.
The notice shall be duly served and published WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 45 : 2025:KER:34266 at least thirty days before the date of sale. (3) A sum of money not less than fifteen per cent of the bid amount of the immovable property shall be deposited by the person declared to be the purchaser with the officer conducting the sale immediately after such declaration and where the remainder of the purchase money is not paid within thirty days of the sale, the money so deposited shall be liable to forfeiture.
(4) The officer conducting the sale may, in his discretion, adjourn the sale to a specified day and hour, recording his reasons therefor. If the date to which the sale is so adjourned is within sixty days of the original sale, notice of the adjourned sale shall be published in the taluk and village offices concerned, in the office of the local authority within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and also on some conspicuous part of the immovable property brought to sale. If the date of the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale. (5) Where the purchaser refuses or omits to deposit the said sum of money or to complete WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 46 : 2025:KER:34266 the payment of the remaining purchase money, the property shall be resold at the expense and hazard of such purchaser, and the amount of all loss and expenses which may attend such refusal or omission shall be recoverable from such purchaser in the same manner as arrears of public revenue due on land. Where the immovable property is sold at the second sale for a higher price than at the first sale, the difference shall be the property of the defaulter.
(6) All persons bidding at a sale shall be required to state whether they are bidding on their own behalf or as agents, and in the latter case to deposit a written authority signed by their principals. If such requisition be not complied with, their bids shall be rejected."
Section 75 of the RR Act reads as follows:
"75. Mode of publication of notices, etc.-
(1) Where any notice, order or list is required to be published under this Act, the publication shall, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 47 : 2025:KER:34266 be made as follows:-
(i) by affixture of a copy of the notice, order or list-
(a) where it relates to immovable property, on a conspicuous part of the property; or
(b) where it relates to movable property, on a conspicuous part of the premises from where the property was attached; and
(ii) by affixture of a copy of the notice, order or list on the office of the village in which, and on the office of the local authority within whose jurisdiction, the attachment or sale takes place.
(2) The Collector or the authorised officer may, in his discretion, publish any notice, order or list in the gazette or in one or two newspapers having circulation in the area in which the attachment or sale takes place or in both."
25. In Ext. P15, the Government found that the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 48 : 2025:KER:34266 sale conducted on 04.08.1999 was not in accordance with Sections 49 and 75 of the RR Act. The statement filed by the Government and the counter affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue state that auction sale notices except the first notice were not issued in Form 16. Section 86 of the RR Act deals with the power of the Government to make Rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. The Kerala Revenue Recovery Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the said Section. Rule 2(c) defines 'Form' to mean form appended to the Rules and Rule 3 provides that the forms given in the Appendix with such variations, not affecting the substance thereof, as the circumstances of each case may require, shall be used for the purposes WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 49 : 2025:KER:34266 mentioned therein. Form 16 'Notice of Sale of Immovable Property' has been appended to the Rules for the purpose of Sub-Section (2) of Section
49. Therefore, a notice of sale of immovable property has to be issued in Form 16.
26. Section 49(2) states that, prior to the sale, the Collector or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall issue a notice in English, Malayalam, and also in the local language, if the language of the locality is not Malayalam, containing the details specified in clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 49(2). The notice shall be duly served and published at least 30 days before the date of sale. However, the date of sale was 04.08.1999, and the notice of sale was dated and issued on 20.07.1999. When Section 49(2), read with Section 75 of the Act, specifically provides that notice shall be duly served and WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 50 : 2025:KER:34266 published at least thirty days prior to the date of sale, a notice dated and served on 20.07.1999 does not satisfy the statutory requirement of giving thirty days' notice before the sale scheduled on 04.08.1999. Further, Section 49(4) provides that if the date of the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale. The original sale date is 12.05.1999. Therefore, sixty days beyond 12.05.1999 is 11.07.1999. The adjourned sale date is 04.08.1999, which is beyond sixty days of the original sale date. Accordingly, in terms of Section 49(4), a fresh notice ought to have been served and published as if it were the original sale. So for as the adjourned sale slated on 19.07.1999 and 04.08.1999, fresh notice ought to have been served and published. Pleadings reveal that auction WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 51 : 2025:KER:34266 sale notices except the first notice were not issued in Form 16. Since no fresh notice as contemplated under Section 49(4) was served and published as per Section 75, the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 is vitiated due to non compliance with the mandatory statutory provisions. This Court in Asha v. District Collector [1990 KHC 376: 1990 (2) KLT 289] and P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala and others [2006 KHC 366: ILR 2006 (2) Ker. 102:
2006 (2) KLT SN 81] has taken the view that the requirement under Section 49 (4) that if the date of the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale, is mandatory. There is nothing erroneous in the findings in Ext. P15 that the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 suffers from a serious infraction of the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 52 : 2025:KER:34266 statutory provisions and stands vitiated.
27. The Government in Ext. P15 found that the 6th respondent was not informed about the auction sale held on 04.08.1999 due to lack of proper notice. The settlement talks by the 6 th respondent with KFC during August 1999 is admitted in the counter affidavit filed by KFC. Considering the records and the context, the Government held that the 6th respondent's version that he came to know of the sale only on 30.12.1999 is credible. It cannot be said that the said finding of the Government based on records and the context is perverse or erroneous. The meetings with the KFC for OTS on 09.09.1999 and 18.12.1999 are evident from Exts.
R6(a) and R6(b), copies of the telegrams. The absence of notice and the ongoing settlement talks support his claim that he was not aware of the sale WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 53 : 2025:KER:34266 that took place on 04.08.1999. His version that he came to know of the sale only on 30.12.1999 could not be disproved and was accepted by the Government, and the same is a plausible view which has been taken on the facts.
28. The 6th respondent filed Ext. P4 application under Section 53 of the RR Act to set aside the sale on 29.01.2000, which is within 30 days from the date on which he claims to have come to know of the sale. The District Collector did not pass any orders on that application. From Ext. P5 order of the Government, it is evident that Ext. P4 application filed by the 6th respondent was not considered by the District Collector as the same was not submitted within 30 days from the date of sale. Sri. Leo George contended that an application under Section 53 to set aside the sale has to be filed WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 54 : 2025:KER:34266 within 30 days of sale and there is no provision to condone the delay in filing the application. Accordingly, it is contended that the finding in Ext. P15 that the District Collector ought to have considered Ext. P4 application filed by the 6th respondent under Section 53 of the RR Act to set aside the sale even though such application was not filed within 30 days from the date of sale, is erroneous. Sri. Leo George relied on the decision of this Court in Litty and another v. Vasu and others [2013 (1) KHC 615: 2013 (1) KLT 669] to contend that the 6th respondent, who was neither diligent nor vigilant in asserting his rights and who approached the matter after an inordinate delay, is not entitled to have the sale set aside, invoking the maxim 'vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt'. Sri. Leo relied on the Division Bench WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 55 : 2025:KER:34266 decision of this Court in George v. District Collector and others [2014 (2) KHC 688: 2014 (3) KLJ 265], to contend that an application to set aside the sale under Section 53 of the RR Act can be entertained only before the confirmation of sale. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaurav Hargovindbhai Dave v Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd and another [2019 KHC 6985: (2019) 10 SCC 572] and Shakuntala S. Tiwari v. Hem Chand M. Singhania [1987 KHC 1006: (1987) 3 SCC 211:
AIR 1987 SC 1823] were relied on by Sri. Leo to contend that there is no equity about limitation and a strained construction to give a more favourable limitation period is to be avoided. The decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 56 : 2025:KER:34266 Pvt. Ltd [2020 (2) KHC 274: (2020) 5 SCC 757:
AIR 2020 SC 1267] and the decision of this Court in Sebastian v. District Collector and others [2021 (6) KHC 45: 2021 (5) KLT 745] were relied on to contend that the statutory authority has no power to extend the time for filing an application beyond the period specified under the statute. Sections 52 and 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act stipulate a time limit of 30 days for filing an application to set aside the sale. Sub-section (2) of Sections 52 and 53 provides that if an application under sub-section (1) is filed, the Collector shall, if the other conditions in the provision are satisfied, set aside the sale. As per Section 54, upon the expiry of 30 days from the date of sale, and if no application is filed under Section 52 or Section 53, or if any such application is made and rejected, the Collector shall WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 57 : 2025:KER:34266 make an order confirming the sale. Though the Government in Ext. P15 observed that the District Collector ought to have considered Ext. P4, the application filed by the 6th respondent under Section 53 of the RR Act to set aside the sale, even though it was not filed within 30 days from the date of sale, the absence of any direction in Ext. P15 to the District Collector to consider Ext. P4 renders the issue irrelevant. Therefore, this Court also need not go into the question as to whether the thirty-day period stipulated in Section 53 runs from the date of knowledge of the sale.
29. It is to be noted that the power of the Collector to set aside the sale can be exercised notwithstanding the fact that no application has been made under Section 52 or 53. The District Collector did not set aside the sale, but confirmed WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 58 : 2025:KER:34266 the sale. No order was passed by the District Collector on Ext. P4 application filed under Section 53, either on merits or on the ground that it was not filed within 30 days of the sale. Had such an order been passed, the 6th respondent could have filed a revision petition under Section 83(1) of the Act before the Land Revenue Commissioner. The 6th respondent therefore submitted petitions before the Minister for Revenue praying to set aside the sale. The Government by Ext. P5 order dated 17.11.2003 rejected the representations. The 6th respondent did not challenge Ext. P5. Later, the 6th respondent preferred Ext. P6 representation dated 02.11.2005 before the Government and the Government issued Ext. P7 order setting aside the revenue sale. It is to be noted that Ext. P7 order was not passed on Ext. P4 original application dated 29.01.2000, but on WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 59 : 2025:KER:34266 representations dated 25.09.2000 and 02.11.2005 filed by the 6th respondent. The petitioner challenged Ext. P7 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9386/2007 contending that the same was passed without notice to the petitioner and this Court by Ext. P8 judgment set aside Ext. P7 order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and the 6 th respondent and after verifying the records pertaining to the sale of the property. Pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment, the Government treated Ext. P6 representation as a revision petition under Section 83 (1) of the RR Act and relegated the matter for consideration by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The Commissioner of Land Revenue rejected Ext. P6 revision petition by Ext. P9 order finding that there is no irregularity in the sale of the property held in favour of the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 60 : 2025:KER:34266 petitioner. Ext. P9 shows that the petitioner had no objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, nor regarding the delay in filing or entertaining it. The objection pointed out and recorded in Ext. P9 is with regard to the delay of 2 months in filing the petition under Section 53 and not the delay in filing the revision petition. Aggrieved by Ext. P9 order, the 6th respondent filed revision petition before the Government under Section 83 (2) of the RR Act. The Government in Ext. P15 took the stand that when the Government/Commissioner of Land Revenue acting under the direction of this Court in Ext. P8 judgment, considered and passed Ext. P9 order, the question of delay in filing an application under Section 83(1) becomes irrelevant. This Court in Ext. WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 61 : 2025:KER:34266 P8 judgment set aside Ext. P7 order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and the 6th respondent and after verifying the records pertaining to the sale of the property, thereby implying that the matter be considered on merits. This Court also observed that if the Government is not the statutory authority to hear the appeal, and the Commissioner of Land Revenue is the competent authority, the Government should transfer the file to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who must comply with the directions in the judgment. Ext. P8 judgment has become final. In the light of Ext. P8 judgment, the Government treated Ext. P6 representation as a revision petition under Section 83 (1) of the RR Act and relegated the matter for consideration by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. As stated, Ext. P9 shows that the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 62 : 2025:KER:34266 petitioner had no objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition before the Commissioner for Land Revenue, nor regarding the delay in filing or entertaining it. In light of the Ext. P8 judgment, the Commissioner of Land Revenue considered the matter afresh treating Ext. P6 as a revision petition. Therefore, the stand of the Government that the question of delay in filing any application under Section 83(1) does not arise cannot be said to be erroneous.
30. This Court, in Ext. P11 judgment, directed the Government to reconsider the entire issue, including the question of 'substantial injury' stated to have been caused to the 6th respondent. An application to set aside the sale under Section 53 can be made if there is any material irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 63 : 2025:KER:34266 sale. In such a case, the applicant must also establish that he has sustained substantial injury as a result of the said irregularity, mistake or fraud. The Government in Ext. P15 found that as per the valuation made by the KFC, the value of the property as on 23.03.2000 was Rs.3,16,250/-. The upset price fixed for 65 cents of land was only Rs.1,20,000/-. It has been averred by the 6th respondent that the property is situated adjacent to NH 47-Kollam City Bypass Road. The 6 th respondent, on the basis of records, has established that the property has been sold far below the value assessed by KFC and the actual price. Selling a property at a fraction of its assessed worth constitutes financial injury. The gross inadequacy in the sale price, and the breach of mandatory procedures, along with other irregularities in the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 64 : 2025:KER:34266 sale, has seriously prejudiced the 6 th respondent, causing him substantial and irreparable injury and loss. There is no reason to interfere with the findings in Ext. P15 in this regard.
In Ext. P15, the Government, after setting aside the sale, have ordered fresh sale to be conducted as per law. Aggrieved by Ext. P15 to the extent it directs to conduct fresh sale of the property, the 6th respondent has filed W.P (C) No. 18113 of 2011. The Government, in Ext. P15, found that the sale conducted on 04.08.1999 suffered from serious irregularities and was vitiated. Accordingly, it was ordered that a fresh sale be conducted in accordance with law. Once the Government found the sale to be irregular and vitiated, it was necessary to take corrective measures. In the facts and circumstances of the WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 65 : 2025:KER:34266 case, the Government took the view that ordering a fresh sale in accordance with law would meet the ends of justice. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision in Ext. P15 ordering fresh sale. Accordingly, both writ petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SB WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 66 : 2025:KER:34266 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8688/2011 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL COPRORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 1/11/1999. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (RR), KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 17/12/1999. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANGADU DATED 1.02.2000. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDEN BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 29/1/2000.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMETN TO THE SIXTH RESPONDENT DATED 17/11/2003.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT ON 2/11/2005.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS G.O. (Rt) No.3303/2006, DATED 5/7/2006.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABNLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.9388/2007 DATED 10/7/2007.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDNT DATEC 12/6/2008.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 67 : 2025:KER:34266 GOVERNMENT DATED 30/12/2008.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.2706/2009 DATED 11/6/2009.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF G.O, (MS) No.7/10/RB DATED 5/1/2010.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) No.3726/2010 DATED 4/10/2010.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26/11/2010. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (MS) No.144/11 DATED 5/3/2011.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMINCATION
(a) ISSUED VIDE A TELEGRAM, ASKING THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO APPEAR ON 9.9.1999. EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
(b) ISSUED THROUGHT A TELEGRAM, ASKING THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO MEET THE GM ON 18.12.1999.
EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED (c) 17.1.2000. EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED (d) 2/8/1999 ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT FROM
THE OFFICE OF THE KFC, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED
(e) 1/9/1999 ISSUED TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KFC, TRIVANDRUM. EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
(f) DATED 31.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER KFC TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 68 : 2025:KER:34266 KOLLAM.
EXHIBIT R6 THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2000 ISSUED
(g) BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TO THE GOVERNMMENT.
EXHIBIT R6 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
(H) NOTE FILE.
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011
: 69 :
2025:KER:34266
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18113/2011
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 17.1.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR
REVENUE.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 29.1.2000 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTSTAT COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 2.8.1999 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KFC, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DEMADN NOTICE DATED 1-9-1999 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KCT, TRIVANDRUM.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MANAGER KFC TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TO THE GOVERNMENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.11.2003 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P8 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. Exhibit P9 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O. (Rt) 3303/06/RD DATED 5.7.06 PASSED BY THE GOVT.
WP(C) Nos. 8688 & 18113 OF 2011 : 70 : 2025:KER:34266 Exhibit P10 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 10.07.2007 IN W.P.(C) No.9386 of 2007.
Exhibit P11 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER ON 12.06.2008.
Exhibit P12 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT ON 30.12.2008.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 11.06.2009 IN WPC NO.2706 OF 2009 Exhibit P14 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.1.2010 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Exhibit P15 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 4.10.2010 IN WPC NO.3728 OF 2010 Exhibit P16 TRUE PHTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 5.3.2011 Exhibit P17 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 15.3.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P20 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.KFC/KLM/LEGAL/363/2018 DATED 2.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER, LEGAL, KFC KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR R4(A) LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 31.12.1994 ANNEXURE TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR R4(B) LOAN OF RS.1,25,000/- ON 19.09.1995 ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED R4(C) 29.03.2010 FILED BY THE KFC BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE INDEMNITY BOND DATED 30.06.2018 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION