Does it require a written demand with reference to 'Section 34' of the Revenue Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to intercept the conveyance effected after the 'arrear of public revenue due on land' has fallen due by invoking Section 44 of the Act or is it enough, if demand had already been made under Section 7 before effecting the conveyance? Does the amount payable to the respondent KSFE constitute any 'arrear of public revenue due on land' merely on notifying the institution under Section 71 of the Act, to attract and invoke Section 44, is another question. Is it open for the 'purchaser' of the property to raise such a contention with reference to the written demand under Section 34 of the Act, when there is no such case for the 'vendor'/defaulter, who effected the conveyance and is he a 'bonafide purchaser' as proclaimed? Can the guarantors raise a contention that deduction from their salary, by virtue of prohibitory orders issued at the instance of the KSFE is not correct, when sufficient assets are available for the defaulter to be proceeded against at the first instance?. Whether the KSFE can claim 'priority right' with reference to Section 3 of the