IMPORTANT POINTS
The setting aside of the sale by the Revenue Divisional Officer was by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Section 54 of the Act, 1968, since the authority was satisfied that the price fetched by the property in the auction was inadequate, which thus, also means irrespective of any kind of material irregularity or mistake, the revenue authority was vested with powers to record his reasons and set aside the sale by virtue of the proviso to Section 54 of the Act, 1968, which is a factual finding-The authority was justified in doing so having realised that the sale if confirmed would seriously prejudice a farmer, also leading to any irreparable injury and loses.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANIKUMAR, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2009 of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) 3826/2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram at Ext.P7 proceedings dated 28.11.2008, who in turn confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki setting aside the sale of the property belonging to one R. Sankarankutty Pillai S/o Raghavan Pillai, Kanavarayil, Elappally P.O. Idukki District ad-measuring 5.49 acres comprising in Survey Nos. 724/1/24 and 724/1/2 of Elappally Village, Thodupuzha Taluk as per the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 (‘the Act 1968’ for brevity) on the basis of the requisition made by State Bank of Travancore.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

The appellant participated in the auction conducted by the revenue authorities of Idukki District as per the provisions of the Act, 1968 for the properties specified above. Apparently, the bid offered by the appellant was the highest in the auction held on 08.10.1992 and thus, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1968, 25% of the bid amount was deposited and the balance amount was paid on 04.01.1992.

3. The case projected by the appellant is that, as provided under Section 54 of the Act, 1968, the District Collector or his delegate ie the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, ought to have confirmed the sale within 30 days from the date of auction, in the absence of any application to set aside the sale by any interested persons.

4. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant was that the inadequacy of the price is not a ground to set aside the sale under Section 54 of the Act, 1968. Fact remains, even according to the appellant, despite numerous requests, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not take any action to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant. However, during 1997, the auction held on 08.10.1992 was cancelled, which according to the appellant, was without any intimation to the appellant. While so, when the property was put for re-auction, the appellant filed O.P. No. 3837 of 2000 before this Court and the re-auction was stayed. Anyhow, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 20.02.2006, the writ petition was disposed of directing the third respondent i.e. the District Collector, Idukki, to take a decision on the representation submitted by the appellant. According to the appellant, thereupon, the District Collector, Idukki has passed Ext.P4 order dated 15.01.2008 holding that the appeal is to be preferred before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the sale was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the direction of the District Collector. However, according to the appellant, the District Collector in Ext.P4 order has stated that as per file No. B3-1185/94 of R.D.O. Idukki, confirmation has been given to another auction conducted in the same area in respect of another landed property which was similar in nature and value and therefore, there is a case for the appellant. The appellant, accordingly, has filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who however, dismissed the same by Ext.P7 order, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed.

5. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the contentions advanced by the appellant, has found that evidently 5.5 acres of agricultural land has been sold to the appellant in the year 1992 for a meagre amount of Rs. 7,000/- after observing that, the finding in Ext.P7 order is that the value of the land at the time of consideration of the appeal by the Commissioner of Land Revenue was Rs. 9,200/- per Are. It was further found that a reading of Ext.P7 also would reveal that the revisional authority has found that the defaulter is a farmer who has taken a relatively small sum of money as loan and the value of the property is