Devan Ramachandran, J.

Section 44 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] reads as under:

"44. Effect of engagements and transfers by the defaulter-(1) Any engagement entered into by the defaulter with any one in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand on him shall not be binding upon the Government.

(2) Any transfer of immovable property made by a defaulter after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear, with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, shall not be binding upon the Government.

(3) Where a defaulter transfers immovable property to a near relative or for grossly inadequate consideration after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that such transfer is made with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, and the Collector or the authorised officer may, subject to the order of a competent Court, proceed to recover such arrear of public revenue by attachment and sale of the property so transferred, as if such transfer has not take place:

Provided that, before proceeding to attach such property, the Collector or the authorised officer shall-

(i) give the defaulter an opportunity of being heard; and

(ii) record his reasons therefore in writing."

2. The question in this case is whether the provisions of Section 44 being so, the jurisdictional Tahsildar could have cancelled a sale deed relating to a property over which there were proceedings for recovery. Though I do not propose to go into the details of the liabilities that are said to be against the owner of the property, I notice that more than one proceedings were initiated or were pending against the owner of the property when he sold it to the petitioner herein. The petitioner, after such sale, applied for transfer of registry in his name but orders were issued by the Tahsildar, not merely denying the transfer of registry, but cancelling the sale itself. The petitioner has filed this writ petition asserting that the Tahsildar has no power, even under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act, to cancel the sale deed.

3. I have heard Sri. V.K. Peer Mohamed Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the Revenue.

4. The provisions of Section 44 as extracted above are absolutely clear and perspicuous. It says that any engagement entered into by the defaulter with anyone in respect of any immovable property after the service of a written demand shall not be binding upon the Government. It also says that any transfer of the property with the intent to defeat or delay the recovery shall also not be binding on the Government. The 3rd sub-Section of Section 44 is pellucid when it mandates that if the defaulter transfers the property to a near relative or for an inadequate consideration, which is intended to defeat recovery of the arrears, the Collector or the authorised Officer can proceed to recover such arrear by attachment and sale of the property so transferred. The last limb of the said Section mandates that if the transfer had already taken place, then the Collector or the authorised Officer will be obligated to give the defaulter an opportunity of being heard and record the reasons thereof in writing. The conspectus of all these provisions makes it inescapable that a property which has been proceeded against for the recovery of arrears would always be subject to the burden of the arrear, if such arrear is a public revenue.

5. The Act provides for recovery of arrears under two broad heads. The first is that the recovery of public revenue as defined therein. This includes the land revenue charge on the land and includes all other taxes, fees and cesses on land whether charged on the land or not and all other dues payable to the Government on account of water useful purpose of irrigation. Under Section 71 of the Act, cert