The matter arises under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Both these writ petitions relate to the title and possession in respect of a property which was sold by the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha pursuant to a sale notice (Ext. P4) in O.P. No. 13289/03 for realization of the arrears of abkari dues of the 5th respondent. According to the petitioner in O.P. No. 13289/03 properties belonging to her were wrongly included in Ext.P4 sale notice on the purported view that the said property is part of the property belonging to the 5th respondent. The petitioner therefore filed a claim petition (Ext.P5) before the District Collector, Idukki, the first respondent seeking for dropping the proceedings against her property. The second respondent by order dated 31.3.2003 (Ext.P6) rejected the petitioner’s claim and also confirmed the sale of the property in favour of the 4th respondent auction purchaser. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.

3. W.P.(C)No. 28047/03 is filed by the 4th respondent in the other O.P. who is the auction purchaser of the property sold in revenue recovery proceedings. He had deposited the price amount of Rs.4,78,500/- on 10.1.2003. By an interim order dated 3.9.2003 in the above two cases this court issued an interim direction to the petitioner in the first O.P. to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within one month failing which the revenue recovery authorities will take delivery of the property sold in favour of the petitioner in the later writ petition. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the petitioner in O.P.No. 28047/03 had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha. Since the sale pursuant to the auction was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser he wants delivery and possession of the property so purchased and to put him in possession of the said property.

4. The auction purchaser has filed a counter affidavit in O.P.No. 13289/03. In the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the property was put to auction on 12.2.2002, that he was the highest bidder, that his bid was accepted by the authorities, that he paid an amount of Rs.71,800/- on that day and the remaining amount of Rs.4,06,700/- was deposited on 10.1.2003, that the contention that he trespassed into the property of the petitioner is not correct, that his possession is legal and that the petitioner is using muscle power with the support of her people. It is also stated that the petitioner herself had approached the civil court seeking substantially the same relief. This is substantially the averment in his writ petition also.

5. I have heard Sri. Mathew John, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No. 13289/03, Sri. T.A. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner in the other writ petition and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Government. Though the 5th respondent, who is the defaulter had received notice there is no appearance for him.

6. The case of the petitioner in O.P.No. 13289/03 is that the properties belonging to her has been wrongly included in the sale notice Ext.P4 on the assumption that it is part of the property belonging to the 5th respondent. It must be noted that the 5th respondent is none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner; it is the case of the petitioner that she got title and possession of the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed of 1999 pursuant to a decree passed in O.S.No. 62 of 1994 of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha and that a perusal of Ext.P2 documents of title of the 5th respondent would reveal that he has properties only in Sy. No. 511/2A. The counsel further submitted that respondents 1 to 3 can proceed only against the properties covered by Ext. P2 document. The counsel further submitted that Ext.P4 sale notice would show that respondents 1 to 3 have attached and sold the portion of the property which are in other Sy. Nos. viz. 511/3/8, 511/2A/5, 510/1B/1,510/1A/1 and 509/3 which according to the petitioner absolutely belo