Point of Law: Revenue sale is conducted not only to wipe off the revenue dues but also to see that maximum price is fetched to the defaulter since in a revenue sale the interests of the intending purchaser, the defaulter and the mortgagee have to be safeguarded. Duty is cast on the officials to safeguard not only the interests of the Revenue but also the defaulter so as to fetch the maximum amount.

JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The captioned writ appeals are filed by the State Government and its officials challenging the judgments of a learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 33704 of 2011 and 22714 of 2013 dated 05.09.2013 and 17.01.2014 respectively, whereby the writ petitions were allowed and the sale conducted by the revenue authorities under Section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (‘Act, 1968’ for short) were set aside. The subject issue relates to the amounts that were due from the writ petitioners on account of Abkari Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1989 ('Act, 1989' for short) and Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969 ('Act, 1969' for short) in common and the sales tax due from the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 33704 of 2011.

2. Apparently, since there were no bidders, when the sale was conducted, the Government purchased the property by virtue of the powers contained under Section 50 of the Act, 1968. Since the issues raised in the writ appeals are substantially common in nature, we thought of disposing of the appeals by a common judgment, for which the parties have agreed to.

3. In W.P.(C) No. 33704 of 2011, an extent of about 1 acre 30 cents of land in Parassala village of Neyyattinkara Taluk belonging to the writ petitioner was put up for public auction on 20.12.1999 and the property was bid by the Government for Re.1 as per the provisions of the Act, 1968. According to the writ petitioner, the sale proceeded as per Exts. P1 to P3 notices dated 15.05.1999, 05.10.1999 and dated nil respectively. As per Ext. P3 notice issued under Section 49(2) of Act, 1968, it was informed that the sale will be conducted on 20.12.1999. However, there were no bidders, which according to the writ petitioner, was due to lack of publication regarding the sale as provided in the Act, 1968 and the Rules thereto.

4. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the proposed sale was conducted in a fraudulent and clandestine manner without informing any intending purchasers. It was also submitted that if the proposed sale was published in newspapers and the Gazette as provided under Section 75(2) of Act, 1968, a large number of bidders would have taken part, since the property is situated by the side of a National Highway. The writ petitioner has also had a case that a portion of the property alone was sufficient for discharging the amount of Rs. 27,57,349/-, which was demanded as per Ext. P3 notice. However, the State Government bought the entire property worth about Rs.360 lakhs for an amount of Re.1, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 50(2)(i) of the Act, 1968, which is illegal and against the provisions of the Act, 1968. The writ petitioner had also a contention that the State Government had purchased the property in its own name, when the amount sought to be recovered was also on behalf of other statutory institutions, which procedure was found to be illegal by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector v. Subaida Beevi [2010 (1) KLT 913], wherein it was held that if the auction was conducted by the State Government and there were no bidders, the Government should have purchased the property on behalf of the requisitioning organisation. Here in this case, the requisitions were made by the authorities under the Act, 1989 and the Act, 1969 to recover the amounts due to them. It is true, amounts were due to the State Government towards the Sales Tax also.

5. Even though a counter affidavit was filed by the second appellant, i.e., the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the learned single Judge was of the clear opinion that the sale conducted by the revenue authorities cannot be sustained under law. It was found by the learned single Judge that there was no proper publication of the sale notice in contemplation of Section 49(2) of Act, 1968; that there is an unexplained delay of 7 years in confirming the sale and that too without noticing the payments effected by the writ petitioner; that the property s