Auction sales under the Revenue Recovery Act must follow due process; inadequacy of price does not alone invalidate a sale without proven fraud or substantial injury.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.

(C)No.24820/2008, challenging the judgment dated 11.09.2015, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking the following reliefs:

“i) call for the entire records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P11 and P13 and quash the same by way of issuing a writ of certiorari, writ or order;

ii) declare that as the petitioner bank having first charge over the property mortgaged to it and the sale conducted and its confirmation by the revenue authorities and the upholding of the same by the Government as illegal and unsustainable.”

3. The appellant is a Central Society registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. It granted cash credit of Rs.10 lakhs each to respondents 5 to 8 on 02.03.1995 on the basis of security of a property having an extent of Rs.3.36 acres of land in Survey No.251/2 of Perinjanam village, owned by the 9^th respondent. On default committed by the borrowers, the appellant filed ARC Nos.182/97, 183/97, 184/97 and 185/97 and obtained an award in its favour. In the meanwhile, respondents 5 to 8, who are engaged in abkari business, committed default in relation to payment of sales tax and the Tahsildar attached the afore property on 25.01.1996. Subsequently, the Tahsildar sold an extent of 54.495 cents of land out of 3.36 acres in auction, for an amount of Rs.5,45,000/-, and it was purchased by the 10^th respondent, who is a close relative of the 9^th respondent. Thereafter, another 2.07 acres of land was sold on 14.02.2000 by conducting auction and it was purchased by the 9^th respondent for a consideration of Rs.23,55,000/-. The Tahsildar also confirmed the sale subsequently. On coming to know about the auction sale, the appellant preferred Exts.P5 and P6 petitions under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act before the District Collector requesting to set aside the sale in respect of these properties. The said petitions were rejected by the District Collector on 01.05.2003, as per Ext.P8 order. Thereafter, the appellant filed a revision petition before the Land Revenue Commissioner and when it was dismissed vide Ext.P11 order, preferred another revision before the Government, which was dismissed as per Ext.P13 order. It is aggrieved by Exts.P11 and P13 orders, the appellant filed the writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition on

11.09.2015.

5. Heard Adv.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Adv. Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, Adv.Praveen K.Joy, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 5,7,8 & 9, Adv.V.V.Sidharthan, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Adv.D.G.Vipin, appearing for the 16^th respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant bank is aggrieved by the sale, conducted by the revenue authorities, of a vast extent of property for a paltry sum. He argued that the properties were, in fact, purchased by the close relative of the mortgagor and the sale has been conducted without proper notice. He submitted that the sale is, hence, vitiated by fraud, collusion and irregularity and both the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government did not consider these aspects while passing Exts.P11 and P13 orders. He contended that Exts.P11 and P13 orders are non-speaking orders and it does not reflect application of mind by the authorities and, therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at their hands.

7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel V.V.Sidharthan appearing for the 16^th respondent, supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds t