IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anu Sivaraman, C. Jayachandran, C.Pratheep Kumar, JJ.
Sruthi, D/o. Viswanathan - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Thrissur and ors. – Respondents
WA NO. 2009 OF 2022
Decided On : 12-03-2024
R.R.Act - District Collector's Powers - Section 52, 53, 54 - The court discussed the powers of the District Collector under Section 54 of the R.R. Act, the grounds for setting aside a sale, the requirement of notice to the purchaser, and the timing of invoking the power under the proviso to Section 54. The court held that the power of the Collector for setting aside the sale under Section 54 is not limited to the grounds set forth in section 53, gross inadequacy of sale price is a ground for setting aside the sale, there will be no automatic confirmation of sale on the expiry of 30 days, natural justice requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the auction purchaser before setting aside the sale under the proviso to Section 54, and the power under the proviso to Section 54 cannot be exercised after confirmation of the sale, except in exceptional circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant participated in an auction, purchased a property, and applied for confirmation of the sale. The Collector set aside the sale due to inadequacy of the sale price and the bidder's relation to the defaulter. The appellant appealed against this decision, leading to a Full Bench to resolve the issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the power of the Collector for setting aside the sale under Section 54 is not limited to the grounds set forth in section 53, gross inadequacy of sale price is a ground for setting aside the sale, there will be no automatic confirmation of sale on the expiry of 30 days, natural justice requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the auction purchaser before setting aside the sale under the proviso to Section 54, and the power under the proviso to Section 54 cannot be exercised after confirmation of the sale, except in exceptional circumstances.
Issues: The main issues were the powers of the District Collector under Section 54 of the R.R. Act, the grounds for setting aside a sale, the requirement of notice to the purchaser, and the timing of invoking the power under the proviso to Section 54.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Collector for setting aside the sale under Section 54 is not limited to the grounds set forth in section 53, gross inadequacy of sale price is a ground for setting aside the sale, there will be no automatic confirmation of sale on the expiry of 30 days, natural justice requires notice and opportunity of hearing to the auction purchaser before setting aside the sale under the proviso to Section 54, and the power under the proviso to Section 54 cannot be exercised after confirmation of the sale, except in exceptional circumstances.
Final Decision: The reference is answered accordingly and the Writ Appeal shall be posted according to roster for consideration.
ORDER :
C.Pratheep Kumar, J.
1. The appellant participated in the auction conducted by the 3rd respondent on 9.4.2007 and purchased the property comprised in Sy.No.258/1 of Pallippuram Village for a total sum of Rs.15,20,000/-. He had remitted the entire sale consideration and applied for confirmation of the sale. However, no sale certificate was issued in his favour, in spite of the fact that nobody applied for setting aside the sale. As per Ext.A1 order, the Collector set aside the sale by invoking the power under Section 54 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (in short the R.R.Act), on the grounds that the solvency certificate given to the said land was Rs.32,00,000/- while the sale proceeds was only Rs.15,20,000/-, which is not a justifiable amount and also that the auction bidder is the close relative of the defaulter. The revision filed by him before the 4th respondent was dismissed as per Ext.P6 order. Writ Petition No.5641/2011 filed against Ext.P6 order has also ended in dismissal. It was in the above context that he preferred this appeal raising various grounds. The main ground raised by the appellant is that inadequacy of sale price is not a ground for setting aside the sale under the proviso to Section 54 of the R.R.Act.
2. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to the notice of the Division Bench two conflicting decisions of two Division Benches of this Court in Subaida Sulaiman v. Hamsa, 1991 KHC 365, and Reetha Wilson v. State of Kerala and Others, 2020 (4) KHC 411, with regard to the powers of District Collector under Section 54 of the R.R. Act. The Division Bench also found some conflict in the above decisions and decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice who in turn constituted this Full Bench to resolve the issue involved in the matter. Now the points that arise for consideration before us are the following :
(ii) Whether the power under section 54 of R.R.Act is limited to the grounds enumerated in section 53 alone?
(iii) Whether inadequacy of the price fetched at the sale is a sufficient ground to set aside the sale under Section 54 of the R.R.Act?
(iv) Whether there is automatic confirmation of sale on the expiry of 30 days ?
(v) Whether notice is to be given to the purchaser before setting aside the sale under Section 54 ?
(vi) Whether sale can be set aside under Section 54 after the confirmation of sale ?
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Government Pleader.
4. Considering the complexity and importance of the issue involved, we have sought the assistance of Adv.Syamkumar V.M., who was appointed as Amicus Curiae. He had also argued in detail the provisions of the R.R.Act, and especially the scope and ambit of Section 54 therein.
5. In order to properly evaluate the scope and ambit of Section 54 of the R.R. Act it is worthwhile to read Section 52, 53 and 54 of the R.R. Act, which are extracted hereunder :-
(a) a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money ; and
(b) a sum equal to the arrears of public revenue due on land for which the immovable property was sold together with interest thereon and cost of process; and may apply to the Collector to set aside the sale.
(2) If such deposit and application are made within thirty days from the date of the sale, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale, and shall repay to the purchaser the purchas
Abdul Basheer K. v. District Collector, Kannur and Others
Joseph v. Tahsildar, South Wynad Taluk & Anr.
The power of the Collector for setting aside the sale under Section 54 of the R.R. Act is not limited to the grounds set forth in section 53, and gross inadequacy of sale price is a ground for settin....
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
The failure to provide proper notice in a revenue recovery auction constitutes a substantial injury, rendering the sale vitiated and necessitating a fresh sale.
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 a....
Procedural compliance in auction sales is mandatory, and non-compliance renders such sales void.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.