The failure to provide proper notice in a revenue recovery auction constitutes a substantial injury, rendering the sale vitiated and necessitating a fresh sale.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, unless, otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the documents referred to herein will be as obtaining in W.P. (C) No. 8688 of 2011.

2. The 6^th respondent availed a loan from the Kerala Financial Corporation (KFC), Kollam, in 1995 for the purchase of a fishing boat. Two items of property, one having an extent of 7.05 Ares (17.5 Cents) comprised in Survey No.698/15 and the other having an extent of 25.60 Ares (65 cents) comprised in Survey No.313/21 of Mangad Village, Kollam District, were furnished by the 6^th respondent as collateral security for the loan of Rs. 6,25,000/-. The loan amount with interest was to be repaid within a period of 5 years. Since the 6^th respondent defaulted repayment of the loan, KFC issued requisition to the revenue authorities in terms of Section 71 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short ‘RR Act’) for realisation of the amounts due to the KFC. In the course of the recovery proceedings, the properties mortgaged by the 6^th respondent were put to sale and the sale in respect of 25.60 Ares was effected in favour of the petitioner on 04.08.1999 for a sum of Rs.1,26,500/- as against the upset price of Rs.1,20,000/-.

3. The petitioner contends that there was no objection whatsoever from the part of the 6^th respondent against the sale and no application to set aside the sale was filed before the District Collector invoking the provisions of Section 53 of the RR Act within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of sale. Accordingly, the sale was confirmed on 01.11.1999 by Ext. P1 order of confirmation issued by the Deputy Collector (RR) under Section 54 of the RR Act. Subsequently, Ext. P2 sale certificate under Section 56 was issued by the Deputy Collector (RR) on 17.12.1999 and mutation was effected in the revenue records on 01.02.2000 as borne out by Ext. P3 tax receipt. The petitioner states that he is enjoying the property ever since. The petitioner sold an extent of 14.18 Ares out of the said property (25.60 Ares) to the additional 7^th respondent as per sale deed No.194/2000 of Kilikolloor SRO dated 28.01.2000 and is retaining only the balance extent of 11.42 Ares. It is also stated that the petitioner has made improvements to the property by spending substantial amounts.

4. While so, the 6^th respondent filed Ext. P4 application dated 29.01.2000 before the District Collector for setting aside the revenue sale under Section 53 of the RR Act. Since Ext. P4 was not acted upon by the District Collector, the 6^th respondent filed representations dated 26.06.2000, 25.09.2000, 07.03.2001 and 23.07.2001 before the Government and the Minister for Revenue. The Government, vide Ext. P5 order dated 17.11.2003, rejected the 6^th respondent’s request to set aside the auction sale, stating that although discussions regarding the One-Time Settlement (OTS) were ongoing, the requisitioning authority had not requested that the revenue recovery proceedings be kept in abeyance. Furthermore, the 6^th respondent's application (Ext. P4) to set aside the sale under Section 53 was not filed within 30 days from the date of sale and, therefore, was not considered by the District Collector. The 6^th respondent did not challenge Ext. P5. Later, the 6^th respondent preferred Ext. P6 representation dated 02.11.2005 before the Government and the Government issued Ext. P7 order setting aside the revenue sale. The petitioner challenged Ext. P7 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.9386/2007 contending that the same was passed without notice to the petitioner and this Court by Ext. P8 judgment set aside Ext. P7 order and remitted the matter to the Government for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner and the 6^th respondent and after verifying the records pertaining to the sale of the property. It was also observed that if the sale was e