P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Whether the correctness and sustainability of the 'Sale Certificate' issued pursuant to the sale conducted in execution of the ARC Award can be examined by the 'Court', while considering the matter under Rule 84 of the Kerala Co - operative Societies Rules, is the point involved in this writ petition.

2. The case has got a long history. The basic dispute is between the ownership rights of the Petitioner and the possessory rights of the 3rd Respondent, who was the owner of the property once upon a time, who sold the same in favour of one Mr. Jose, who in turn executed sale deed in favour of the 6th Respondent. The sequence of events as described in the writ petition shows that the 5th Respondent availed a loan from the 4th Respondent Society, on the strength of the above collateral security offered by the 6th Respondent. Since the due amount was not cleared as specified, the matter led to ARC, wherein an Award was passed in favour of the Society. Pursuant to the execution proceedings, the property was caused to be sold in a public auction and the Petitioner turned to be the successful bidder, who satisfied the bid amount and got Ext. P8 Sale Certificate.

3. In the course of the above proceedings, the 3rd Respondent had turned up with a claim petition, contending that the property actually belonged to the said Respondent and not liable to be auctioned, in respect of dues from the 5th and 6th Respondents. The said claim petition was rejected by the 2nd Respondent as per Ext. P2, which was subjected to challenge in WP (C) No. 24710/2003 leading to Ext. P3 judgment. As borne by Ext. P3, this Court observed that the Petitioner therein (3rd Respondent herein) was having alternate remedy as provided under the Statute and he was relegated to approach the Civil Court, intercepting the coercive proceedings for a period of 6 months, making if clear that it will not stand in the way of settling the liability under the One Time Settlement Scheme.

4. While so, Ext. P4 sale notice was issued and the sale was conducted on 20/02/2006 wherein the Petitioner offered the highest sale consideration of Rs. 6,05,500/- and bid the property in his name. The 3rd Respondent filed Ext. P6 before the 2nd Respondent to set aside the sale, which was dismissed as devoid any merit, vide Ext. P7 and the sale was confirmed on 07/07/2006, followed by issuance of Ext. P8 Sale Certificate dated 19/07/2006. After obtaining the Sale Certificate, the Petitioner filed necessary proceedings to effect transfer of registry and got the mutation effected, remitting the basic tax for the property as evident from Ext. P9 receipt from November 2007 onwards.

5. In furtherance to the above proceedings, the 2nd Respondent issued Ext. P10 notice to the 6th Respondent to quit the premises, so as to deliver the property to the Petitioner. But immediately thereafter the 2nd Respondent issued Ext. P11 on 27/09/2006 expressing 'helplessness' in this regard by virtue of the hurdle placed by 'R.84' of the Kerala Co -operative Societies Rules. Being aggrieved of Ext. P11, the Petitioner challenged the same by filing WP (C) No. 25917/2006, wherein Ext. P12 judgment was passed directing the 2nd Respondent to effect 'delivery' of the property, observing that the obstruction caused was by the 'defaulter himself and hence Rule 84 was not applicable. Pursuant to this Ext. P13 request was made by the 2nd Respondent to the concerned Sub Inspector of Police for giving necessary police assistance to effect delivery.

6. In the mean while, Ext. P7 order passed by the 2nd Respondent refusing to set aside the sale was sought to be challenged by the 3rd Respondent by approaching the Government, wherein Ext. P14 interim stay was granted, which was subsequently vacated as per Ext. P15-dated 26/12/2006, accepting the version put forth by the Petitioner. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the appeal was subsequently dismissed by the Government.

7. Be