Point of law: Rule 155 of Kerala High Court Rules mandates that no ground shall be relied upon and no reliefs sought at time of hearing, except grounds taken and reliefs sought in Original Petition and accompanying affidavit be considered.

JUDGMENT :

Basant Balaji, J.

The Additional 2nd respondent in O.P. No.7196 of 1993 is the appellant. The first respondent was the petitioner, and the 2nd respondent was the 1st respondent before the learned Single Judge.

(The parties are referred to as the defaulter and the auction purchaser, in this appeal)

2. The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this Writ Appeal are as follows:-

Five acres of land comprised in survey No.1/1A of Tolambra Amsom, belonged to the defaulter. It was attached on 17.12.1986 pursuant to the recovery proceedings initiated for realization of sales tax arrears. Out of the 5 acres, 3 acres of land was sold on public auction on 29.6.1987 for a sum of Rs.25,818.39/-. The auction purchaser/appellant bid in auction and purchased the property. On the date of sale itself 15% of the bid amount was remitted by her. In the meanwhile, the defaulter filed appeal before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode challenging the common order of the appellate Assistant Commissioner along with the stay petition. Thereafter, she approached this court and filed O.P. No.5628 of 1987 for speedy disposal of the appeal and this court by judgment dated 13.7.1987 directed to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible and the confirmation of the sale was stayed till the disposal of the appeals and the stay petitions. Therefore, the revenue did not accept the balance 85% from the auction purchaser. The appeal filed by the defaulter for the year 1982-83 was dismissed and another appeal filed challenging the assessment for the year 1983-84 was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh disposal. Due to the change of circumstances, arrears got reduced to Rs.11,675.65/-plus interest. So revised revenue certificate was resubmitted to the District Collector on 28.12.1988.

3. The defaulter filed revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the sale conducted on 29.6.1987 under Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short ‘the RR Act’). The Board of Revenue, by Ext.P1 order dated 30.5.1992 finding irregularity in the sale set aside the sale subject to the defaulter remitting the amounts due to the Government, which may be fixed by the Sub Collector within 3 months from the date of order. The sub collector, thereafter, by Ext.P2 order dated 28.8.1992 quantified the amount as Rs.46,419/-and directed the defaulter to pay the amount within 3 months from the date of getting the order failing which it will presumed that the defaulter was not willing to remit the amount found due to the Government. While calculating the amount due, the Sub Collector had quantified interest for the period from 5.2.1990 to 31.8.1992 at the rate of 18% per annum. On 7.11.1992 the defaulter sent a representation to the District Collector informing that as per the RR Act, only 6% interest can be demanded and requested for re-computation. The defaulter thereafter approached this court by filing O.P. No.15670/1992 for a quashing the order dated 28.8.1992 whereby the sub collector quantified the amount with interest at the rate of 18%. This court by judgment dated 30.11.1992 disposed of the O.P. directing the defaulter to deposit interest at the rate of 6% per annum and if deposit is made, Ext.P3 petition was directed to be disposed of within one month. The defaulter did not remit interest at the rate of 6% as ordered by this court in O.P. No.15670 of 1992.

4. The 2nd respondent thereafter, issued proceedings on 16.3.1993 on the representation filed by the default on 7.11.1992 and held that the defaulter has to deposit the amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of deposit of the bid amount by the auction purchaser till the payment, within a period of 7 days of the date of receipt of the order. On 21.3.1993, the defaulter again sent another representation to the respondents informing that as per the judgment in O.P. No.15670 of 1992, it was declared that only 6% interest can be recovered from her. But the Sub-Co