The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fresh notice to be served and published if the date of the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale, as per S.49(4) of the Revenue Recovery Act. The judgment also emphasizes the necessity of issuing notice to all interested parties before passing an order under the proviso to S.54, as it would bring civil consequences.

The auction purchaser is the petitioner.

2. The property in dispute measuring 3 acres 63 cents in extent comprised in Sy. No. 2/2 of Vallikunnu Village which belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was attached under S.36 of The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, for short The Revenue Recovery Act, on the requisition of the Kerala Financial Corporation to whom the predecessor-in-interest of the additional fourth respondent, owed monies due under a loan transaction.

3. The property later was notified for sale by public auction and the sale as per the notification, was scheduled to take place on 26-10-1988. The upset price was shown as Rs.S, 80,200/-. The sale had to be adjourned more than once for want of bidders and the property was ultimately sold on 23-2-1989. The petitioner was the highest bidder and therefore he was directed to deposit the bid amount in terms of the conditions stipulated in the notification. The petitioner accordingly deposited the bid amount and applied for confirmation of the sale. As there was no response from the authorities concerned, the petitioner moved this Original Petition for the following reliefs: -

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondents to issue orders confirming the sale held on 23-2-89 in pursuance of Ext.P 1 in conformity with S.54 of the Act and take further steps as provided under Ss.56 to 58 of the Act;

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction, directing the respondents to issue orders confirming the sale, grant the certificate of sale and put in possession of the property purchased by the petitioner in auction held on 23-2-1989 in pursuance of Ext.P1;

(c) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direct which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and

(d) Award costs".

4. During the pendency of the Original Petition the third respondent passed Ext.P8 order setting aside the sale. The petitioner thereafter got the Original Petition amended and thus Ext.P8 is under challenge.

5. The reason noted in the order, Ext.P8s to set aside the sale is this: -

"Sub-section (4) of S.49 of the R.R. Act provides among other things 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 words used are "original sale" and not previous sale. In the present case the date of original sale is 26-10-1988. The period of sixty days from the date of original sale expired on 25-12-1988. Therefore for the sale on 4-1-1989 on or 23-2-1989, denovo proceedings should have been taken in serving and publishing notice as contemplated in S.49(4) of the Act. In the present case, no notice is seen to have been served on the parties concerned, regarding the sale proposed to be conducted on 4-1-1989 or on 23-2-89. The sale is vitiated due to non-compliance of the procedure in the statute. Therefore the sale is liable to be set aside. In the result, in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to S.54 of the R.R. Act, the sale is set aside and the records are returned to the Deputy Tahsildar (RR), KFC, Malappuram".

The question thus arising for consideration is: Was the third respondent justified in setting aside the sale on the ground that the sale was conducted without proper notice. The answer to this question depends upon the construction of sub-section (4) ofS.49. It reads: -

"49. Procedure for sale of immovable property-Immovable property attached under this Act may be sold in accordance with the following provisions, namely: -

4. The officer conducting the sale may, in his discretion, adjourn the sale to a specified day and hour, recording his reasons therefore. 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 th