Petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, doing business in Kottayam District.

2. According to the petitioner, Respondents 5 to 11 are the legal heirs of Late Sri. Karunakaran, Kunnumchirayill, Muttuchira, who died on 4.7.1992. Sri. Karunakaran and his son Shiju, the 7th respondent had availed three business loans from the petitioner Bank on 9-6-1992 and as security for the said loans, it is stated that they executed a mortgage deed Nos. 1408/1992, 1409 & 2002. After the death of Karunakaran, his legal representatives - Respondents 5 to 11 availed three other loans which were secured as per registered mortgage deed Nos.659, 660 and 661/1995, executed on 22-2-1995. While accepting the mortgage, they verified the registers of the sub registry by taking out the encumbrance certificate and found that the only mortgages in their favour hank was the existing liability. In connection with the above loan transaction, title deeds pertaining to 1 Acre and 50 cents of land comprised in Sy.Nos.871/5 and 871/4 covered by Sale deed No.878/1968 of S.R.O., Kaduthuruthy standing in the name of Late Karunakaran was deposited with the petitioner Bank. Subsequent to the death of Karunakaran and after availing of loans by respondents 5 to 11, the transaction became a non performing one and subsequently, recovery proceedings were initiated against respondents 5 to 11 by resorting to the remedies under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by filing arbitration cases. Eventually, an award was passed on 16-6-1996, copy of which is produced as Ext.P1 series in this Writ Petition. Even after the award, the judgment debtors did not close the transaction and hence the petitioner instituted execution proceedings and the mortgaged properties were put to sale in public auction. As there was no bidders, the Bank sought leave and bid the property in auction and the matter was communicated to Respondents 5 to 11. The sale was confirmed and confirmation letter was given on 10-6-1999 to the Bank, which assumed possession of the property. While so, petitioner came to know that the property in question was going to be sold by the 4th respondent for certain abkari dues allegedly due from Late Karunakaran. Though the petitioner gave a report dated 2-9-1999 to the Village Officer, Muttuchira, through its General Manager; ignoring the same, the Tahsildar, Vaikom issued sale notification for sale of the property for the alleged abkari dues amounting to Rs.3,53,281/-. No notice was issued to the petitioner, who have a valid, substantial and subsisting interest in the property which was alerted through the report submitted to the Village Officer and in such circumstances, petitioner filed O.P.9303/2000 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment dated 20-1-2003, directing to consider the claim of the petitioner before confirmation of sale. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application before the 4th respondent on 22-1-2003, to stop the sale proceedings and accordingly, the sale was adjourned to 7-2-2003 on which day also petitioner filed another application. But ignoring the objections and claims of the petitioner, the Tahsildar conducted the sale on 7-3-2003 in favour of the 12th respondent and thereafter the sale was confirmed on 31-7-2003 as evidenced by Ext.P3 produced herein. On receipt of Ext.P3, though the petitioner preferred a revision before the second respondent, without conducting a property hearing, the same was dismissed by Ext.P4 proceedings dated 1-4-2004. Hence petitioner impugns Exts.P3 and P4.

3. It is urged that Ext.P3 has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner in spite of the fact that petitioner is interested in the property, that the property is at present in the ownership and possession of the petitioner, that the property having a value of Rs.10 lakh at present has been put in public auction for recovery of a paltry sum of Rs.3,53,000/- which was bid in