High Court Kerala High Court

Rajan Thomas vs Tahsildar on 26 November, 2007

Kerala High Court
Rajan Thomas vs Tahsildar on 26 November, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 1150 of 2004(J)


1. RAJAN THOMAS, KALLUMGAL HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOMY GEORGE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :26/11/2007

 O R D E R
                          KURIAN JOSEPH J.
               ----------------------------------------------
             Writ Petition (Civil) No.1150 of 2004
               ----------------------------------------------
                 Dated 26th November, 2007.

                            J U D G M E N T

Petitioner approached this court aggrieved by Exts.P3

and P5 notices. Petitioner is an auction purchaser of the property

referred to in the notices. The auction was conducted on

28.2.2003. Being a successful bidder in the auction, after

depositing the entire bid amount, the petitioner was put in

possession of the property. After about ten months, Ext.P3 notice

was issued by the Tahsildar stating that the Revenue Divisional

Officer, by proceedings dated 6.11.2003 had set aside the sale.

Petitioner submits that no notice whatsoever was issued to him

regarding such proceedings before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

In the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated

as follows :-

“The Revenue Divisional Officer in his proceedings No.B7-
5767/02 dated 6.11.2003 set aside the sale conducted on
28.2.2003 on finding that the bid amount which includes value
of a building existed in the land, was too low.”

I am afraid, the reason cannot be appreciated. As held by the

Division Bench of this court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa

[1991(2) KLT 158], mere inadequacy of the price fetched at the

WP NO. 1150/04 2

sale would not by itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the sale.

That apart, it is shocking to note that the petitioner was not even

issued a notice. Exts.P3, P5 and the proceedings of the Revenue

Divisional Officer referred to in Ext.P3 are accordingly quashed.

There will be a direction to the respondents to pass orders

regarding confirmation of the sale, within one month from the

date of production of a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs