IMPORTANT POINTS
When the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004 was passed, the same was solely on the ground that the Appellant-Trust did not submit the relevant documents to prove its eligibility and on no other ground. The High Court considered the grounds stated in the counter affidavit and did not interfere with the order of cancellation dated 24.08.2004. The Appellant would be justified in making the grievance that the High Court was not justified in considering the grounds stated in the counter affidavit which were not the basis for passing the original order of cancellation

JUDGMENT :

S. Manikumar, J.

Materials on record discloses that in an earlier round of litigation, when notices were issued under Exts.P3 and P5, the same was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 1150 of 2004. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, writ court by judgment dated 26.11.2007, ordered thus:

“I am afraid, the reason cannot be appreciated. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa [1991(2) KLT 158], mere inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale would not by itself is a sufficient ground to set aside the sale. That apart, it is shocking to note that the petitioner was not even issued a notice. Exts.P3, P5 and the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer referred to in Ext.P3 are accordingly quashed. There will be a direction to respondents to pass orders regarding confirmation of the sale, within one month from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.”

2. Being aggrieved, Tahsildar, Idukki District and three others have filed R.P. No. 421 of 2008 seeking review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1150 of 2004. Observing that no ground for review has been made out, learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Writ Court also observed that if the appellants are of opinion that the judgment is wrong, their remedy lies in filing an appeal against that judgment. Thereafter, they filed W.A. No. 1877 of 2010 seeking to reverse the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 1150 of 2004. After considering the pleadings and submissions, and taking note of decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa [1992 (2) KLT 158], wherein it was held that mere inadequacy of sale price cannot be a ground for setting aside the sale and also a decision in Captain v. District Collector [1999 (2) KLT 547], as per which another Hon'ble Division Bench held that a sale can be set aside, only after issuing notice to the auction purchaser, W.A. No. 1877 of 2010 has been disposed of. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads thus:

“7. If sale is to be set aside before confirmation, as held by this Court, notice must be issued to the parties. Sale cannot be set aside on mere inadequacy of price. In the light of these principles, we dispose of the appeal as follows:

If the appellants are inclined to think that sale is to be set aside on any ground available to them in law, it is open to issue such a notice within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to the respondent. If such a notice is received, necessarily it will be open to the writ petitioner to raise all contentions available to him in law, and a decision will be taken within a period of one month from the date of hearing and the question relating to the confirmation also will be decided in those proceedings. In case, no notice is issued within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, then again a decision must be taken by the respondents in regard to whether confirmation must be made within a period of one month thereafter. If they are inclined to confirm it, no notice is necessary. But, if they are of the view that confirmation is not to be granted necessarily notice must be given to the writ petitioner before such a decision is taken.”

3. Thus, from the previous round of litigation between the parties, it could be seen that the Hon'ble Division Bench has made it clear that sale cannot be set aside on mere inadequacy of price, for which reliance has been placed on Subaida Sulaiman (cited supra). Subsequent to the decision made in W.A. No. 1877 of 2010 on 22.11.2013, notice has been issued by the District Collector, Idukki, to the respondent/writ petitioner, and vide Ext.P11 proceedings No. B1-22247/2001 dated 04.03.2014, cancelled the auction. The reasons assigned therein for cancellation of auction read thus:

“Cancellation of auction of immovable property under the Revenue Recovery Act is clearly stated in Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Revenue Recovery Act. As per Section 53, if the applicant who s