Sukumaran, J.

The two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. They question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions-O.P. Nos. 2925 & 2929 of 1979-whereunder the learned judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. The reason as given by the learned judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not therefore belong to the defaulter at (he time of the sale and that the revenue sale without reckoning the earlier private sale in favour of the petitioners was void.

2 The correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') particularly S.44 thereof.

3. We shall, at the outset, set out the relevant brief facts. The properties originally belonged to one A. P. Ramaswamy Gounder. He was an assessee to agricultural income-tax. Demands made for payment of the tax to the extent of Rs. 30,563.29 remained un responded to and the dues thus remained unpaid. The machinery for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act was thereupon set in motion. A notice under S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act dated 18-10-1971 was served on the defaulter on 8-11-1971.

There was no reaction from the defaulter even to that notice. A notice under S.36 attaching the property was issued on 22-6-1972. The property was notified for sale under S.49, the notification having been published in the Gazette dated 26-6-1973. The sale initially posted to 7-8-1973 but was adjourned to 27-8-1973 due to want of bidders. It was again postponed for the same reason and on 24-9-1973, the Government purchased the property under S.50 of the Act. The petitioner in O.P.No. 2929/1979, who is the husband of the petitioner in the connected case, O.P.No. 2925/1979, had participated in the auctions held on 27-8-1973 and 24-9-1973. That sale was confirmed under S.54 on 17-1-1974. The land had been taken possession of by the Village Officer on 18-10-1974. On 6-7-1979, the Village Officer notified that the ripe cardamom in the property would be sold in auction on 21-8-1979. That auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder.

4. It was at this time that the petitioners approached Court praying, inter alia, for quashing the revenue sale. A writ of mandamus to dispose of the representations filed by them to the Collector and the Minister under Exts.Pl dated 29-3-1976 and P2 dated 1-6-1976 was also sought for, for, according to them, those representations had remained undisposed of. The petitioners pleaded that they purchased the property under a private sale from the defaulter on 16-7-1973 and that they had not been notified about the recovery proceedings taken thereafter.

5. The facts of the case clearly established that the private sales in favour of the petitioners were effected after the service of notice of demand under the Act, on the defaulter as referred to in S.44. According to the Revenue, the private sales so effected after service of the demand notice came within the mischief of the section and consequently were denuded of any efficacy whatever. The contention of the petitioners has been pointedly dealt with and answered in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The relevant passage can be usefully extracted:

"It is submitted that as per S.44 of the Act any engagement entered into by the defaulter with any one in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand notice on him shall not be binding upon the Government. In this case the demand notice was served on the defaulter on 8-11-1971. Therefore, any transaction after 8-11-1971 is not valid and not binding on the Government. The contention of the petitioner is that she purchased the property from Sri. A.P. Ramaswamy as per sale deed No. 1