State Of Kerala vs Thomman Joseph
2021 Latest Caselaw 19745 Ker

W.A. Nos. 976 & 1408 of 2014               :1:



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                       &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 31ST BHADRA, 1943

                               WA NO. 976 OF 2014

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 IN WPC 33704/2011 OF HIGH

                                COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9 & 12 IN THE WRIT PETITION:

     1      STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

     2      COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     3      DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            COLLECTORATE, KODAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     4      REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     5      TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY NEYYATTINKARA P.O.
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     6      ADDITIONAL SALES TAX OFFICER
            NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     7      ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     8      WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR
            TODDY WELFARE FUND, WELFARE FUND INSPECTORS OFFICE,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     9      DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
            NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

    10      VILLAGE OFFICER
            PARASALA, PARASALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

            BY ADV. SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR. GOVERNMENT
            PLEADER
 W.A. Nos. 976 & 1408 of 2014         :2:



RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 10 & 11 RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:

     1       ABDULKHANI
             S/O.MOHAMMED MUSTAFA, APSARA MANZIL, INCHIVILA,
             PARASSALA P.O., PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     2       A.SADASIVAN,
             A.S.NIVAS, THACHANCODE, KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKONAM POST,
             NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     3       CHANDRIKA SADASIVAN
             A.S.NIVAS, THACHANCODE, KUNNATHUKAL, KARAKONAM POST,
             NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.V.G.ARUN (NEYYATTINKARA)
             SRI.MILESH.V.PAVIYALA
             SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
             SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
             SRI.P.VISHNU PAZHANGANAT




         THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2021,

      ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 1408/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY

      DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. Nos. 976 & 1408 of 2014            :3:



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                    &

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 31ST BHADRA, 1943

                           WA NO. 1408 OF 2014

JUDGMENT DATED 17.01.2014 IN WPC 22714/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN W.P.(C):

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
             SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

     3       THE TAHSILDAR
             MEENACHIL TALUK, MEENACHIL TALUK OFFICE, PALA - 686 130.

     4       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR),
             MEENACHIL TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, PALA - 686 130.

     5       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM- 686 243.

             ADV. SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 6TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

     1       THOMMAN JOSEPH
             S/O.LATE MATHAI, KAPPIYANIKKAL HOUSE, AMANA KARA,
             RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 576.

     2       THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
             KERALA TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
             SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KTWWFB(TODDY WORKERS WE

         THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2021,

ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 976/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A. Nos. 976 & 1408 of 2014       :4:




           Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2021.

                                JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY.

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 should have been purchased in favour

of the requisitioning authority and the State; and that the action of

the State Government in purchasing the property in its name alone,

in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

Subaida Beevi (supra), is illegal and bad.

6. In fact, writ petitioner had applied for an amnesty scheme

prevailing at that time, which was declined as per Ext. P12 order by

the Assistant Commissioner of Excise, Thiruvananthapuram dated

22.07.2008, which was affirmed in appeal by the Revenue Divisional

Officer and in revision by the Land Revenue Commissioner as per

Ext.P15 order dated 17.09.2011 holding that since the property was

sold in public auction, the amnesty scheme cannot be extended to

the writ petitioner. However, the learned single Judge set aside the

aforesaid orders passed by the said authorities and further directed

the Government and the District Collector to settle the dues

extending the benefit of the amnesty scheme, on the writ petitioner

making a fresh application. The Government and the District

Collector were also directed to restore possession of the property in

question to the writ petitioner, on the writ petitioner depositing

Rs.20 lakhs towards the dues within a period of two months over

and above the payment of Rs.6,38,375/- remitted by the

predecessor in title of the property on 30.12.1999 and

Rs.1,72,700/- on 20.03.2000.

7. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 22714 of 2013 is concerned,

amounts were due towards Abkari dues and the Kerala Toddy

Workers' Welfare Fund Act, 1969. Therein also, an extent of 42

cents of landed property was put up for auction and in absentia of

bidders, the property was bought by the Government. The very

same grounds in regard to the illegal purchase by the Government

was advanced by the writ petitioner therein also. It is relevant to

note that, the entire amount was paid by the writ petitioner though

belatedly, which was accepted by the concerned authorities without

any objection.

8. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the

proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in Subaida and

also taking into account the fact that the sale conducted was

illegal, the proceedings of the District Collector in regard to the

bought-in-land dated 11.11.1988 bearing order No. D-2621/88 was

annulled and further directed the respondents to carry out mutation

in favour of the writ petitioner after observing that since the

property is claimed to be in occupation of the writ petitioner, there

can be no hindrance to the acceptance of basic tax. It is, thus,

challenging the legality and correctness of the judgments in the writ

petition, the appeals are preferred.

9. The paramount contention advanced in the appeal by the

State is that since amounts were due to the State Government

under the Sales Tax Act, the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in Subaida (supra) would not apply. It is also submitted that

the amnesty scheme provided as per G.O.(MS) No. 108/2008/TD

dated 26.05.2008 could not have been extended to the writ

petitioner, since the sale was confirmed on 09.08.2007. That apart,

it was also submitted that merely because amounts were deposited

under the amnesty scheme, that would not lead to cancellation of

the sale effected under the Act, 1968. Other contentions were also

raised.

10. We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader

Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan for the appellants, Sri. Arun V.G, Sri. K. B

Pradeep and Sri Varghese Kuriakose for the respondents/writ

petitioners, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

11. The respective counsel have addressed their arguments

basically relying upon the legal issues discussed above. In order to

arrive at a logical conclusion, we feel it appropriate that the relevant

provisions of law are discussed. Section 50 of Act, 1968 deals with

'bidding on behalf of Government'. Sub-Section (1) thereto

specifies that when an immovable property is put up for sale, at the

time and place specified in the notice under sub-Section (2) of

Section 49 for the recovery of arrears of public revenue due on

land, if there be no bid or if the highest bid be insufficient to cover

the said arrears and those subsequently accruing due upto the date

of sale, together with interest and cost of process, the officer

conducting the sale shall postpone the sale to another date which

shall not be later than 60 days from the date of first sale and give

notice of the subsequent sale under sub-Section (4) of Section 49.

12. Sub-Section(2) delineates that when the property put up

for sale on the date to which it was postponed under sub-Section

(1) at the time and place specified in the notice, if there be no bid,

the officer conducting the same may purchase the property on

behalf of the Government for 10 paise. However, sub-Section (4)

inter alia specifies that notwithstanding anything contained in the

Act after the confirmation of the sale, all the right, title and interest

of the defaulter, purchased on behalf of the Government shall be

deemed to have vested in the Government from the date of

purchase and if the defaulter is in actual possession of the property

or if he is entitled to possession, the Collector or the authorised

officer shall, immediately after the confirmation of sale, take

possession of the property.

13. Section 49 of Act, 1968 makes a clear cut procedure for

conducting the sale, which reads thus:

49. Procedure for sale of immovable property .- Immovable property attached under this Act may be sold in accordance with the following provisions, namely:-

(1) The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector or the authorised officer having jurisdiction over the village in which the property is situate.

(2) Previous to the sale, the Collector or the authorised officer as the case may be, shall issue a notice thereof in English and in Malayalam and also in the language of the locality where such language is not Malayalam, specifying-

(i) the name of the defaulter;

(ii) the position and extent of the land and of his building and other known improvements thereon ;

(iii) the amount of revenue assessed on the land, or upon its different sections;

(iv) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered ;

(v) the proportion of the public revenue due during the remainder of the current financial year; and

(vi) the time, place and conditions of sale.

The notice shall be duly served and published at least thirty days before the date of sale.

(3) A sum of money not less than fifteen per cent of the bid amount of the immovable property shall be deposited by the person declared to be the purchaser with the officer conducting the sale immediately after such declaration and where the remainder of the purchase money is not paid within thirty days of the date of the sale, the money so deposited shall be liable to forfeiture. (4) The officer conducting the sale may, in his discretion, adjourn the sale to a specified day and hour, recording his reasons therefor. If the date to which the sale is so adjourned is within sixty days of the original sale, notice of the adjourned sale shall be published in the taluk and village offices concerned, in the office of the local authority within whose jurisdiction the property is situate and also on some conspicuous part of the immovable property brought to sale. If the date of the adjourned sale is beyond sixty days of the original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were the original sale.

(5) where the purchaser refuses or omits to deposit the said sum of money or to complete the payment of the remaining purchase money, the property shall be re-sold at the expenses and hazard of such purchaser, and the amount of all loss and expense which may attend such refusal or omission shall be recoverable from such purchaser in the same manner as arrears of public revenue due on land. Where the immovable property is sold at the second sale for a higher price than at the first sale, the difference shall be the property of the defaulter.

(6) All persons bidding at a sale shall be required to state whether they are bidding on their own behalf or as agents, and in the latter case to deposit a written authority signed by their principals. If such requisition be not complied with, their bids shall be rejected."

14. On a reading of sub-Section (4) there is no iota of doubt

that if the date of the adjourned sale is beyond 60 days of the

original sale, fresh notice shall be served and published as if it were

the original sale. Admittedly, the sale was adjourned twice and it

was on the third occasion, on 20.12.1999, the property was bought

in by the Government for Re.1. The case projected by the writ

petitioner is that even though a notice was served on him, which

was undated, there was no publication of the notice consequent to

which there were no bidders. It is an admitted fact that there was

no publication of the notice in the manner provided under law. This

we say because, Section 75 of Act, 1968 deals with the mode of

publication of notices etc., which reads thus:

75. Mode of publication of notices, etc.- (1) Where any notice, order or list is required to be published under this Act, the publication shall, unless it is expressly provided otherwise, be made as follows:-

(i) by affixture of a copy of the notice, order or list-

(a) where it relates to immovable property, on a conspicuous part of the property ; or

(b) where it relates to movable property, on a conspicuous part of the premises from where the property was attached; and

(ii) by affixture of a copy of the notice, order or list on the office of the village in which, and on the office of the local authority within whose jurisdiction, the attachment or sale takes place.

(2) The Collector or the authorised officer may, in his discretion, publish any notice, order or list in the gazette or in one or two newspapers having circulation in the area in which the attachment or sale takes place or in both.

15. The contention put forth by the learned Senior

Government Pleader was that publication of the notice in

newspapers or Gazette is not a mandatory requirement, since sub-

Section (2) of Section 75 of Act, 1968 itself makes it clear that

there is a discretion available to the Collector or the authorised

officer and nobody can compel the authority to carry out publication

in newspapers or gazette.

16. We have evaluated the rival submission made across the

Bar. It is an admitted fact that amounts were due from the writ

petitioners to the Government as well as other statutory authorities;

however, the properties were purchased by the Government on its

behalf alone, and not on behalf of the Government and the

requisitioning authority jointly. The Act, 1968 would apply to any

specified institutions only when the Government in contemplation of

Section 71 of Act, 1968 notifies in the Gazette declaring that the

provisions of the Act shall be applicable for the recovery of amounts

due from any person or class of persons to any specified institutions

or any class or classes of institutions and thereupon, all the

provisions of the Act, 1968 shall be applicable to such recovery.

Therefore, a substantial portion of the dues demanded, admittedly

was not a due of the Government; but the recovery was made by

the Government for and on behalf of the specified institutions

namely Kerala Abkari Workers Welfare Fund authority and the

Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund authority also.

17. Viewed in that manner, when the Government, by virtue

of the powers conferred under Section 50(2) of the Act 1968 bought

the property for Re.1, it should have been purchased for and on

behalf of the Government against its dues as well as on behalf of

the other requisitioning authorities. This is exactly the question

considered in Subaida Beevi (supra). The relevant portion of the

judgment reads thus:

Going by the scheme of the Act, we are of the view that when a

notification is issued under Section 71, the provisions of the Act apply mutatis mutandis to the recovery of the amounts due to the said institution. If that be so, in Section 50(2), the words, 'on behalf of the Government' should be read as 'on behalf of the institution concerned'. Therefore, if there was no bidders, the Revenue Recovery Officer could have purchased the property on behalf of the second respondent Bank only. But, in this case, it was purchased on behalf of the State, for Re.1. So, the entire proceedings were vitiated. Therefore, the quashing of the proceedings and the directions issued by the learned Single Judge are sustained, though for a different reason. The reasoning of the learned Judge that Section 50(2) will not apply to recovery proceedings for the institution covered by the notification under Section 71, is not tenable. The said provision also applies mutatis mutandis to the recovery proceedings for such institution. The view taken by the learned Judge in Varkey v. State of Kerala (supra), is in tune with the scheme of the Act. The observation of the learned Judge in Ayisha Teacher v. District

Collector (supra), concerning the scope of Section 50, vis-a-vis the revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the requisition of an institution covered by Section 71 of the Act, does not lay down the correct legal position. The view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in Canara Bank v. Thankappan (1989 (2) KLT 74), though not directly applicable to the facts of the case, supports the view that the financial institution will not lose the property, if the Government fail to find a purchaser for it. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, subject to the clarifications mentioned above."

18. Taking into account the law laid down by the Division

Bench, we have no doubt in our mind that the learned single Judge

was right in holding that the purchase made by the Government

was not in accordance with law. The next question that emerges for

consideration is as to the nature of publication of the notice in

contemplation of Section 49(4) of the Act, 1968. On an analysis of

Section 49(4) r/w Section 75(2) of the Act, 1968, it is clear that

definite procedures are prescribed for conducting the sale of the

property.

19. Even though the learned Senior Government Pleader

addressed arguments to the effect that the Collector or the

authorised Officer has the discretion to decide as to whether the

notice is to be published in the gazette or in one or two newspapers

having circulation in the area in which the attachment or sale takes

place or in both, we are unable to agree with the said contention for

the reason that the publication is mandatory as per Section 49(4) of

Act, 1968. In no other provision other than Section 75(2) of Act,

1968, the manner in which the publication to be done is prescribed

or rather the publication is defined so as to gather a different

meaning other than the one discussed above.

20. Therefore, a harmonious construction of Sections 49(4)

and 75(2) of Act, 1968 is required to be made so as to ascribe a

purposeful meaning to the terminology " publication", as intended

by the legislature, and make the provisions operational practically,

and render justice to the affected party, and accordingly, we are of

the clear opinion that the discretion has to be exercised by the

statutory authority in accordance with the stipulations contained

under the provisions of law by making suitable publication so as to

attract public attention. This is more so, since in our view, the

District Collector or the authorised officer is provided with the

discretion to make any publication choosing between the Gazette

and in one or two newspapers. If that was not the intention of the

legislature, then the option would not have been available in sub-

Section (2) of Section 75 as to the manner in which the publication

is to be made, that is, in the Gazette or in one or two newspapers.

Which thus also means, sub-Section (2) of Section 75 has to be

construed strictly to protect the interest of the writ petitioners, who

are the owners of the properties in order to secure maximum price

in the bid, and unless and until sufficient publication is made the bid

conducted would be an empty formality, which is not the intention

of the legislature.

21. Therefore, more than everything, the purpose for which

the provision was incorporated in the statute has to be given the

utmost credence and relevance so as to translate the true intention

of the legislature. To put it otherwise, a court considering such an

issue has always a duty imbibed in it to find out the true intention

of the makers of law so as to render justice to the needy in

accordance with law. It is also well settled that when a statutory

provision is open to more than one interpretation, the court has to

choose the one that represents the true intention of the legislature.

This is more so when Article 300A of the Constitution of India

confers a Constitutional right on the citizens, that they shall not be

deprived of their right to property save by authority of law.

22. The issue, according to us, is no more res integra, since a

Division Bench of this Court in P. Gopalakrishnan v. The State of

Kerala and others [2006 KHC 366] had occasion to consider the

issue and held that sale was illegal due to non compliance with the

procedure laid down in Section 49 r/w Section 75 of Act, 1968. It

was further found therein that the discretion under Section 75(2) of

the Act, 1968 has to be exercised by the authorities depending

upon the facts of each case and each case has to be dealt with in a

just and equitable manner, apart from holding that sale may be

vitiated, if there is failure to exercise the discretion. Paragraph 7 of

the judgment is relevant to the context and it reads thus:

"7. 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. Discretion conferred under S.75(2) has to be exercised by the authorities depending upon the facts of each case and the case has to be dealt with in a just and equitable manner. Revenue authorities should know that the defaulter is in distress and between devil and deep sea. Defaulter in a given case would not be in a position to repay the

amount due to various reasons, such as labour unrest, lack of raw materials, unfavourable market Conditions and host of other reasons. Defaulter in all situations may not be a cheat or swindler. Since revenue authorities are dealing with the properties of Somebody else it is highly necessary that an attempt should be made by them to get maximum price for the property."

23. In our view, the proposition so laid down has a very close,

intimate and intrinsic connection to the appeals at hand, because

the writ petitioner/first respondent in Writ Appeal 976 of 2014 had

a case that there was no proper publication of the notice in

accordance with Section 49(4) of the Act, 1968. When a specific

plea was raised in the writ petition, the Government had a duty to

establish before the learned single Judge that publication was made

in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1968. So also, a

learned single Judge of this Court in Mahadevan Pillai v. Kerala

financial corporation [1997 (2) KLT 46) considered the very same

question as to the manner in which the discretion has to be

exercised by the authority under the Act, 1968 and held that in the

matter of sale of extensive land, publication in notice board is not

sufficient and the discretion conferred under Section 75(2) of Act,

1968 should be exercised, and the auction shall be published in the

newspaper. It was also held that, it is only the manner of

publication to be made as provided under sub-Section (2) of Section

75 of Act, 1968, the Collector or the authorised authority has the

discretion. Taking into account the above said legal and factual

aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single

Judge was right in holding that the State Government was not

legally correct in conducting the sale of the properties in question,

and consequently issuing the appropriate directions.

24. We are also of the view that the amounts due were

apparently paid by the defaulters during the pendency of the writ

petition or thereafter. It is also clear from the record of proceedings

that the amnesty scheme has been extended by the Government

upto 31.12.2013 and therefore, we do not find any force in the

contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader

that the scheme was not available to be extended to the writ

petitioners. We also agree with respect to the finding of the learned

Single Judge that there was undue delay of seven years in

confirming the bid in favour of the appellants.

Needless to say, Writ Appeals fail and accordingly, they are

dismissed.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

ANNEXURES OF W.A. NO. 976/2014:

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

EXT.R1: DEMAND DRAFT ISSUED BY THE FEDERAL BANK, PARASSALA BRANCH

DATED 24.09.2013.

EXT.R2: ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT DATED 03.10.2013.

EXT.R3: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24.09.2013.

EXT.R4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN

I.A.NO. 16619 OF 2013 IN W.P.(C) NO. 33704 OF 2011 DATED 17.12.2013.

EXT.R5: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO

THE FIRST RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS COUNSEL DATED 21.05.2014.

EXT.R6: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE LAWYER NOTICE.

EXT.R7: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO

THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH HIS COUNSEL DATED 21.05.2014.

EXT.R8: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE LAWYER NOTICE.

EXT.R9: TRUE TRANSLATED COPY OF G.O(MS) NO.76/13/REVENUE DATED

01.03.2013.

ANNEXURES OF W.A.NO. 1408/2014:

APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN DATED 28.11.2000.

ANNEXURE 2: TRUE COPY OF THE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 04.10.2013 ISSUED

BY TODDY WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD.

ANNEXURE 3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2014 ISSUED BY

THE KERALA TODDY WORKERS' WELFARE FUND BOARD INDICATING NO DUES.

/True Copy/

P.S to Judge.