ORDER (R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.)

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Devikulam (second respondent herein), the Authorised Officer and delegate of the District Collector under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (in short `the Act) attached the immovable property (land bearing Survey No.1131 of Peermade measuring 9.39 acres) belonging to Ansari and others under section 36 of the Act, on 9.1.1992, to recover their abkari dues to the state government. The property was put up for sale by public auction under section 49 of the Act. The appellant was the successful bidder in the auction held on 5.6.1998. The sale was confirmed in her favour on 28.7.1998 under section 54 of the Act. On payment of the entire consideration of Rs.3,65,500/- a sale certificate was issued under section 56 of the Act, on 7.10.1998 (duly registered in the office of jurisdictional Sub-Registrar on 13.10.1998). In pursuance of such sale, the property was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the appellant and she paid the tax due in regard to the said property on 19.11.1998. The sale was not challenged by anyone. It has not been cancelled by any authority, nor set aside by any court.

2. As there was some resistance when she entered the property, the appellant applied under section 58 of the Act for delivery of possession. There was no response from the Collector or the Authorised Officer. On the other hand, there was an evasive reply dated 7.1.1999 from the Tehsildar, Peermade, requesting the appellant to contact the forest authorities. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Collector under section 58 of the Act and the evasive reply, the appellant filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court in OP No.5297/1999 seeking a direction to the respondents to deliver possession of the property purchased by her. When the matter came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, the facts alleged by the appellant were neither denied nor disputed. The inaction to perform the statutory duty under section 58 of the Act was sought to be explained by the respondents by submitting that the matter was under verification to find out whether the land sold to the appellant was a forest land or not. The learned Single Judge did not find the explanation satisfactory. He therefore allowed the petition by order dated 7.4.1999. He noted that the Revenue authorities had put up the said land to sale by public auction; that the appellants bid had been accepted, the sale had been confirmed and a sale certificate had been issued to her under the Act; and the property had been mutated to her name in the revenue records and she had paid the land tax also. He was of the view that after putting up the property for sale and having received the full consideration of Rs.365500/-, the State government could not turn round and take a stand that it will not deliver possession merely on the ground that it had some doubt that the land may be a forest land. Therefore, the learned Single Judge directed the respondents to deliver the possession of the land to the appellant within one month. In pursuance of the said order of the learned Single Judge, possession of the land was duly delivered by the respondents to the appellant on 9.6.1999 under a mahazar.

3. Long after such delivery, the respondents challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Appeal No.270 of 2000. In the memorandum of appeal, the respondents disclosed that the land in question had been assigned by the Revenue department to Kunjumon and three others (in 1981 and 1984) under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules by issuing Pattas; that the said assignees had sold the land to Ansari and others; that as the said Ansari and others had committed default in paying their akbari dues, the land was attached and brought to sale by the revenue authorities. Respondents further pleaded that there was a likelihood that land assigned in favour of Kunjumon and others in 1981 and 1984 was a forest land and that the same being assigne