JOJO GEORGE vs THE STATE OF KERALA
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 1
2026:KER:80372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TH
FRIDAY, THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 24TH ASWINA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 17720 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
JOJO GEORGE
S/O.VARGHESE,
VALLIKKUNNEL HOUSE,
CHIRAKKADAVU P.O, CHERUVALLY,
KANJIRAPPALLY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SHRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 MS. OIKO CREDIT ECUMENICAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
U.A
NETHERLANDS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS INDIAN REGIONAL MANAGER,
NAJVS SUNDARA RAO,
BLOCK NO.197, PRARAB NAGAR,
JUBILEE HILLS, ROAD NO.72,
HYDARABAD.
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 2
2026:KER:80372
3 THE TAHSILDAR
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KOTTAYAM, 686 001.
5 GEORGE THOMAS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SIDA RUBBER GOODS TRAINING CENTRE,
KOOVAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM 686 001.
6 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
*7 T.J.JOSEPH
S/O.T.K.JOSEPH,
THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
KOOVAPPILLY.P.O., KANJIRAPPILLY -686518.
*8 DR.THOMAS JOSEPH
S/O.T.K.JOSEPH,
THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, T.C.NO.20/1645,
ORIENT HOME, KARAMANA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
*9 SIBY JOSEPH
S/O.T.K.JOSEPH,
THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
KOOVAPPILLY.P.O., KANJIRAPPILLY -686518.
*10 GEORGE JOSEPH
S/O.T.K.JOSEPH,
THOOMKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
KOOVAPPILLY.P.O., KANJIRAPPILLY -686518.
*(ADDL.R7 TO R10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
07.09.2012 IN I.A. NO.11912/2012)
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 3
2026:KER:80372
BY ADVS.
SRI.BINU PAUL
SMT.SHAHINA HAMEED, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
SRI.SHAJI THOMAS
SRI.T.V.VINU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.09.2026, THE COURT ON 16.10.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 4
2026:KER:80372
“ C.R.”
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
----------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.17720 of 2012
----------------------------------------
th
Dated this the 16 day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
A revenue recovery sale held on 26.05.2010 for recovering rubber
cess, is the subject matter of dispute in this writ petition. The said sale was
set aside by the Government as per the impugned order, which is assailed
by the auction purchaser in this writ petition.
2. For rubber cess due from an establishment called Sida Rubber
Goods Training Centre, a property having an extent of 3.30 Ares in Survey
No.184/1 of Block No.8 of Koovappally Village belonging to its Managing
Director - the fifth respondent, was attached on 15.12.2009, as per the
provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (for short, ‘the KRR
Act’). The property was later put up for sale on 23.02.2010, and since none
turned up to purchase the property, it was again put up for sale on
26.05.2010 and the petitioner being the highest bidder at Rs.3,83,500/-, his
bid was accepted. Thereafter, as none had filed any objection or even any
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 5
2026:KER:80372
application to set aside the sale under sections 52 and 53 of the KRR Act ,
the Revenue Divisional Officer confirmed the sale on 12.01.2011, after
holding that the sale was conducted regularly and in accordance with law.
3. While so, the second respondent, a decree holder in an Arbitration
Award against the fifth respondent, filed an application before the Land
Revenue Commissioner on 02.02.2011, alleging that the order confirming
the sale ought to be set aside, especially since the said applicant was
denied the benefit of section 48 of the KRR Act, and further that the upset
price fixed was too meagre and therefore collusion between the parties
ought to be suspected. By an order dated 13.09.2011, the Land Revenue
Commissioner, after noticing the history of the case, dismissed the said
petition. It was found that the property included in the revenue auction was
excluded by the District Court in the execution proceedings under the
arbitration Award and also that the revenue recovery sale was held on
26.05.2010, while the first order of the Civil Court to sell the property was
only on 20.12.2010, apart from there being no application filed for setting
aside the sale. It was also found that none had filed any application alleging
any irregularity, mistake or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale was
ever filed.
4. The second respondent filed a revision petition under section 83(2) of
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 6
2026:KER:80372
the KRR Act before the Government against the order of the Land Revenue
Commissioner, and by the impugned order dated 03.05.2012, the
Government allowed the revision petition and set aside the said order as
well as the order confirming the sale. The writ petition thus challenges the
order setting aside the revenue auction. While so, after the writ petition was
filed, when it was realised that pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order,
the fifth respondent sold the property to the eighth respondent as per a sale
deed No.2224/2012 of Erumeli Sub Registry Office, the writ petition was
amended and the relief of declaration that the said sale deed is not binding
upon the petitioner or will not affect the revenue recovery sale was
incorporated.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the fifth respondent stating that
due to default in repayment of the loan availed from the second respondent,
arbitration proceedings were initiated and pursuant to an Award dated
27.12.2005, the second respondent filed an execution petition before the
District Court, Kottayam as E.P. No.28/2007. It is also pleaded that, sales
tax and rubber cess were also in arrears for which a revenue auction was
held on 02.06.2008. Since subsequently, the sales tax liabilities were
reduced and paid, the said sale was later set aside. Despite the above,
since arrears of rubber cess remained, an extent of 3.30 Ares of property,
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 7
2026:KER:80372
which formed part of 41.60 Ares in Re-survey No.184/1 in Block No.8 of
Koovappally Village belonging to the fifth respondent was sold in public
auction by the revenue authorities. According to the fifth respondent, since
the second respondent had filed a petition on 20.11.2010 before the
Tahsildar to set aside the sale on getting information of fraud, and also filed
a petition not to confirm the sale, the fifth respondent had not filed any
petition.
6. According to the fifth respondent, ignoring the petition filed by the
second respondent, the sale was confirmed on 12.01.2011, and thereafter, a
petition was filed by the writ petitioner before the District Court as E.A.
No.09/2011 in E.P. No.28/2007 to demarcate the property stating that the
property sold by the Government was not well demarcated or separated.
The District Court however dismissed the said application. It is also stated
that the fifth respondent had, in the meantime, transferred the property as
agreed, to respondents 7 to 10, and cleared the entire balance of the decree
debt due to the second respondent, who, in turn, filed an affidavit in E.P. No.
28/2007 admitting full satisfaction. After the impugned order, the property
was sold to the additional eighth respondent, as per sale deed
No.2224/2012, for a consideration of Rs.10,20,000/-.
7. In the counter affidavit filed by additional respondents 7 to 10, they
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 8
2026:KER:80372
reiterated the contentions of the fifth respondent and stated that they
purchased the property after getting permission from court and further that
the Tahsildar could not have sold the property which was attached by the
District Court.
8. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner, stating that the Civil
Court itself had excluded 3.30 Ares from the court sale, which itself justifies
the auction conducted by the revenue authorities, and further that the
property purchased by the petitioner was excluded from the court sale. It is
also stated that the remaining property brought for sale by the Execution
Court consists of a huge building, including plant and machinery and
therefore, the upset price fixed in the proclamation of the court sale, had to
be different from the vacant land of an extent of 3.30 Ares put up for
revenue sale. Petitioner also alleged that the agreement to purchase the
property was done behind the back of the petitioner, and the reasoning in
the impugned order is baseless and is not sufficient to set aside the sale.
The petitioner has also pleaded that he is a bona fide purchaser in a
revenue auction and the execution petition filed before the District Court
was not sufficient to get over the charge over the property by the
Government.
9. Sri. S. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 9
2026:KER:80372
K. N. Chandrababu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that
the impugned order is perverse and failed to consider the relevant aspects.
It was argued that neither was there any petition under section 48 of the
KRR Act nor was there any application to set aside the sale filed by any
person. It was also submitted that there was no material before the
Government to come to the conclusion that the value obtained in auction
was inadequate as the property put up in revenue auction was a vacant land
while that put up in the court auction had a huge building with plant and
machinery. It was also submitted that the conclusion of the Government that
there was a possible collusion between the officials and the auction
purchaser was based on surmises and assumptions. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that the sale deeds created after the revenue auction are
liable to be declared as having no effect.
10. Sri. George Abraham, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and
7 to 10, and Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel for the fifth respondent,
submitted that the impugned order does not warrant any interference. It was
further submitted that, when Ext.P6 petition was filed under section 48 of the
KRR Act, the sale ought not to have been confirmed without taking a
decision on that petition. Relying upon the decision in Raveendran Nair
M.G. v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (4) KHC 518], Adv.George
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 10
2026:KER:80372
Abraham, contended that the revenue recovery proceeding itself was
without any authority as rubber cess was not a public revenue due on land.
He further submitted that the Rubber Board is not an institution notified
under section 71 of the KRR Act and hence, the recovery proceedings are
illegal.
11. Having regard to the contentions advanced, the following issues
require determination:
(i). Whether rubber cess can be recovered under the provisions of KRR
Act?
(ii). Whether the petition dated 29.11.2010 (Ext.P6) should have been
considered as a petition under section 48 of KRR Act?
(iii). Whether the order setting aside the revenue sale held on 26.05.2010 is
liable to be interfered with?
(iv). Whether the sale deed No.2224 of 2012 executed on 13.07.2012 of
Erumeli Sub Registry Office can be declared as not binding on the
petitioner?
12. Before dealing with the above mentioned issues, it is necessary to
refer briefly to the facts, as revealed from the pleadings. The revenue
recovery auction held on 26.05.2010 relating to 3.30 Ares of property
belonging to the fifth respondent is the subject matter of dispute. Being the
highest bidder, the auction fell in favour of the writ petitioner for
Rs.3,83,500/-. After the sale, none filed any application to set aside the sale
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 11
2026:KER:80372
as per the provisions of section 52 or section 53 of the KRR Act.
13. While so, the second respondent, who had claimed to have
obtained an arbitration Award against the fifth respondent, filed an execution
petition and attached an extent of 41.60 Ares, belonging to the fifth
respondent on 13.11.2007. The property sold in revenue auction, having an
extent of 3.30 Ares in Survey No.184/01, was part of the said 41.60 Ares,
over which the second respondent had obtained an attachment. Hence, an
application was filed as E.A. No.12/2011 by the State Government as well
as the writ petitioner to exclude the extent of 3.30 Ares - the property
already sold in revenue auction, as by then, the notice of Court sale was
published, proposing sale of the entire 41.60 Ares on 17.01.2011. By an
order dated 03.02.2011, the District Court, Kottayam, allowed the claim
petition and excluded the property of 3.30 Ares and directed only the
remaining property to be sold for recovery of amounts due under the
arbitration Award and also permitted incorporation of a rectified valuation as
shown by the judgment debtors, on account of the exclusion of the claim
property. The decree holder was permitted to participate and bid in the
auction sale of 38.30 Ares for the amount due under the arbitration Award.
The said order of the District Court was never challenged. On the other
hand, a sale proclamation was published pursuant to the order of the District
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 12
2026:KER:80372
Court, excluding the extent of 3.30 Ares purchased by the petitioner in the
revenue sale. Thereafter, the court sale in the execution proceedings was
held on 07.06.2011, and the property having an extent of 38.30 Ares was
purchased by the decree holder.
14. In the meantime, the second respondent, had on 29.11.2010 filed
Ext.P6 application stating that the amount due as rubber cess can be
recovered from the personal property of the defaulter - the fifth respondent
and if not done so, the second respondent is willing to pay the amount. The
auction sale was confirmed on 12.01.2011. Subsequent to the confirmation
of sale, a petition was filed before the Land Revenue Commissioner
challenging the sale confirmation, which was dismissed, against which, the
second respondent approached the State Government under section 82 of
the KRR Act. By the impugned order, the State Government set aside the
sale stating that a petition under section 48 of the KRR Act was before the
RDO and therefore, the sale could not have been confirmed.
15. It is also relevant to mention that subsequent to the court auction,
the decree holder itself filed E.A. No.113/2011 stating that respondents 6, 7
and 8, who were third parties, had agreed to purchase the property for
consideration, and hence, they agreed to have the court sale held on
07.06.2011, set aside and permit the first judgment debtor to transfer the
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 13
2026:KER:80372
property to third parties. The District Court by order dated 01.10.2011, set
aside the court sale and relying upon the settlement, the judgment debtor
was permitted to transfer the property to respondents 6, 7 and 8 or to any
other person. Thus after the Government set aside the revenue sale, a sale
deed was executed between the fifth respondent and the eighth respondent
and the property included in the revenue sale was sold by sale deed
No.2224 of 2012 of Erumeli Sub Registry Office.
16. In the background of the above facts, the issues raised earlier, are
dealt with in seriatim.
Issue No. (i). Whether rubber cess can be recovered under the provisions
of KRR Act?
17. Though there is no pleading in any of the counter affidavits or
even in the petition filed before the Government on the above issue, still,
since a contention was raised during arguments, relying upon the Full
Bench decision in Raveendran Nair M.G. v. State of Kerala and Others
[2014 (4) KHC 518], the issue is considered. The main thrust of the
argument on behalf of the respondents regarding this issue was that rubber
cess is not a public revenue due on land and since Rubber Board was not
an institution notified under section 71 of the KRR Act, the amount due to
such an institution cannot be recovered invoking the provisions of the said
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 14
2026:KER:80372
statute.
18. Rubber cess is a duty of excise imposed under section 12 of the
Rubber Act, 1947 on all rubber produced in India at a rate, fixed by the
Central Government. The said cess is collected by the Board, either from
the owner of the estate on which the rubber is produced or from the
manufacturer by whom such rubber is used or from the exporter by whom
such rubber is exported. True, rubber cess is not a cess on land. Since
rubber cess is neither a land revenue nor a cess on land, it cannot be
regarded as a ‘public revenue due on land’ as defined in section 2(j) of the
KRR Act, since. In Raveendran Nair (supra) it has been held that merely
because revenue recovery proceedings can be invoked, pursuant to a
notification under section 71 of the KRR Act, to recover a debt, the character
of the debt would not change into a public revenue due on land. Thus, even
if revenue recovery proceedings were initiated to recover rubber cess, the
debt could not have been regarded as public revenue due on land.
19. Further, no notification under section 71 of the KRR Act has
been produced to indicate that the Rubber Board has been notified as an
institution under the KRR Act. Hence, the Rubber Board is not even an
institution notified under section 71 of the KRR Act. Notwithstanding the
liability not being a public revenue due on land and the Rubber Board
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 15
2026:KER:80372
having not been notified under the KRR Act, can the provision of the KRR
Act, be invoked, to recover the cess due to the Rubber Board? The answer
has to be in the affirmative for the reasons mentioned in the ensuing
paragraphs
20. As per section 12(3) of the Rubber Act, 1947, if the person liable
to pay the duty of excise to the Board fails to do so, the duty can be
recovered as an arrear of land revenue. Further under section 68 of the
KRR Act, all sums due to the Government which has been declared by any
other law to be recoverable as an arrear of public revenue due on land or as
land revenue; and all fees and other dues payable by any person to the
Government, can be recovered under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it is
not only amount of public revenue due on land or amount due to institutions
notified under section 71 of the KRR Act that can be recovered through the
process of revenue recovery, but even sums declared by any other law to
be recoverable as land revenue can be recovered through the said process.
21. In this context, reference to an unreported decision in Jyothi
Chaly v. State of Kerala and Others [W.P.(C).No. 6569 of 2010] wherein
amounts due to the Airport Authority of India was sought to be recovered
through the KRR Act, is relevant. It was held that amounts due to other
States or other institutions under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1890 (Central)
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 16
2026:KER:80372
can also be recovered through the provisions of the KRR Act. Further, in
Charuvilkulangara Khadi and Village Industries Co-operative Society v.
State of Kerala and Others [2018 (3) KHC 512], while dealing with
recovery initiated by the Khadi Board, it was observed that though the Khadi
Board is not a notified institution under S.71, it was empowered under S.29A
of Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1957 to recover arrears due to it
by resorting to the provisions of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act as an arrear
of land revenue.
22. Similarly, in a recent decision in Kunjumohammed M.M. v. State
of Kerala [2026 (1) KLT 48], a learned Single Judge of this Court had, while
dealing with amounts due to a cooperative society under the Kerala
Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, held that awards to which S.76(b) of the
said Act apply, a notification as contemplated by the provisions of S.71 of
the KRR Act is not necessary as the provisions of S.76(b) of the Kerala
Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 itself makes amounts so due, to be
recoverable as arrears of public revenue due on land.
23. Thus, by virtue of the provisions contained in section 68 of the
KRR Act, the arrears of rubber cess can be recovered through the
provisions of the KRR Act.
Issue No. (ii). Whether the petition dated 29.11.2010 (Ext.P6) should have
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 17
2026:KER:80372
been considered as a petition under section 48 of KRR Act?
24. Section 48 of KRR Act enables a decree holder who has obtained
an attachment through the civil court to remove an attachment effected
under the KRR Act, over the same property on which he has obtained an
attachment. The second respondent had alleged that his petition filed on
29.11.2010 (Ext.P6), is an application under section 48 of KRR Act and
hence the sale could not have been confirmed. To appreciate the above
contention, it is necessary to extract section 48 of the KRR Act as follows;
“ Judgment–creditor of the defaulter may pay arrears.-
Whenever any land, which is under attachment in execution
of a decree of a civil court, is attached under this Act for
arrears of public revenue due on such land, the judgment-
creditor at whose instance the civil court attached the
property may pay the arrears of public revenue due on the
land, with interest and cost of process, to the Collector or
the authorised officer, and add the amount so paid to the
debt due from the judgment-debtor and recover it as such.
The officer receiving the amount shall grant a receipt under
his signature and it shall be conclusive evidence of such
payment. Upon such payment, the attachment under this
Act shall be withdrawn.”
25. A reading of the above provision indicates that the following are
the salient features of section 48 of the KRR Act:
(i). Land, under attachment in execution of a decree of a civil
court, is attached under the Act for arrears of public revenue
due on such land.
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 18
2026:KER:80372
(ii). The Judgment-creditor at whose instance the civil court
attached the property, can pay the arrears of public revenue
due on the land, with interest and cost of process, to the
Collector or the authorised officer.
(iii). A receipt issued by the Officer receiving the amount shall
be conclusive evidence of such payment.
(iv). On such payment, the attachment shall be withdrawn and
the decree holder can recover the amount paid by him from
the judgment debtor.
26. Section 48 of the KRR Act makes it explicit that it has application
only at the stage when the property is under attachment and not after the
sale has taken place. The terminology used in section 48 of KRR Act is
unambiguous, that it is a pre-auction procedure and not after the auction. In
other words, once an auction or sale of the property attached in revenue
recovery proceedings has taken place, section 48 of KRR Act will not apply.
Further, the decree holder/judgment creditor must deposit the amount, for
which the revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated, and obtain a
receipt, and thereafter get a certificate enabling him to include that amount
also in his execution proceedings. Section 48 of the KRR Act has no
application unless the amount due under the revenue recovery for which the
attachment has been effected, is deposited.
27. In the instant case, as noted earlier, the sale was on 26.05.2010.
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 19
2026:KER:80372
Ext.P6 petition, even if it is assumed to be a petition under section 48 of the
KRR Act, was filed only on 29.11.2010 - after the sale. Moreover, the
amount due under the revenue recovery was not deposited and instead
what is stated in the said petition is that the Government can recover the
dues from the personal assets of the fifth respondent, and if there is default
in such recovery, the second respondent is ready to pay. Such a conditional
offer is not countenanced and is not a substitute for actual payment, as
contemplated under section 48 of the KRR Act. Hence, Ext.P6 petition filed
on 29.11.2010, on behalf of the second respondent, does not satisfy the
requirements of section 48 of the KRR Act. Thus, the revenue sale
conducted by the Government could not have been set aside on that score.
Issue No. (iii). Whether the order setting aside the revenue sale held on
26.05.2010 is liable to be interfered with?
28. In the impugned order, the Government suspected collusion on
the ground that the price fixed in the proclamation for court sale was
Rs.1.25 lakh per cent, while the Tahsildar had put up the property for sale at
Rs.47,055/- per cent. Even if it is assumed that the auction was bid by the
petitioner for a value less than that it should have actually fetched, it is a
settled principle of law that an auction sale is a forced sale, in which the
best price will not often be forthcoming. Hence, mere inadequacy of the
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 20
2026:KER:80372
price fetched at a revenue sale would not by itself, be a sufficient ground to
set aside the sale in favour of an auction purchaser, unless it was grossly
inadequate. In this context, reference to the Full Bench decision in Sruthi v.
District Collector, Thrissur [2024 (2) KLT 506], is relevant. Further, if the
revenue sale is interfered with for the mere asking, sanctity of auction sales
will be affected and none will participate in such auctions, thereby
prejudicially affecting the recovery of dues.
29. It is also relevant to mention in this context that, petitioner had
contended that the property put up for sale in the court auction had a
building, apart from plant and machinery, while the property sold under the
revenue recovery sale was a vacant land. Thus it cannot be concluded that
the property was sold at the revenue auction for a lower value. Hence, the
conclusion arrived at in the impugned order, to the contrary, is based on
surmises and without any reference to the facts.
30. Even the finding regarding collusion between the parties due to
the alleged lower value fetched, is without any basis or material. No reason
is forthcoming as to how the Government assumed that there was any
collusion. In the absence of any material and also in view of the clear
findings of the Land Revenue Commissioner that there was no collusion or
even any sale of property for a lesser value, this Court is of the view that the
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 21
2026:KER:80372
impugned order is unsustainable. Conclusions arrived at in Ext.P9 are not
based on any material and the relevant factors have not been considered
while irrelevant factors have been taken into reckoning and hence, the same
is not sustainable. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Issue No. (iv). Whether the sale deed No.2224 of 2012 executed on
13.07.2012 of Erumeli Sub Registry Office can be declared as not binding
on the petitioner?
31. The second respondent had sold the property including the 3.30
Ares sold in revenue auction to the eighth respondent, immediately after
Ext.P9 Government Order. Since the discussion in the preceding
paragraphs persuade this Court to set aside the Government Order,
consequently, the private sale of 3.30 Ares, situated in Survey No.184/1 of
Block No.8 of Koovappally Village could not have taken place. The said sale
deed cannot have any effect or binding force as the fifth respondent did not
have title to execute a sale deed to that extent.
In view of the above conclusions, Ext.P9 order dated 03.05.2012
bearing No.G.O.(M.S) No.185/12/RD issued by the Government of Kerala,
is hereby set aside. Consequently, it is declared that the sale deed
No.2224/2012 in favour of the eighth respondent to the extent it includes
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 22
2026:KER:80372
3.30 Ares situated in Survey No.184/1 of Block No.8 of Koovappally Village,
is not binding on the petitioner or on the said property.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
vps JUDGE
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 23
2026:KER:80372
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.D-4232/2010
DATED 12.01.2011, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D.4232/2010 DATED
12.01.2011 BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF SALE IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF LAWFUL
SUCCESSION OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
DATED 17.02.2011 AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION
57(1) ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 3.2.2011
IN E.A. NOS.8/11, 9/11 AND 12/11 IN E.P.
NO.28/2007 BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,
KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
29.11.2010 FILED BY DR. GEORGE ABRAHAM
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS LR(B)7-7350/11
DATED 13.9.2011 OF THE LAND REVENUE
COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GO(Ms)185/12/RD
DATED 3.5.2012
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED UNDER
ORDER XXI RULE 66 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE IN EP NO.28 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 24
2026:KER:80372
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE
ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE
TAHSILDAR, KANJIRAPPALLY BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2224/2012
EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF
8TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3336 OF 2011 OF
SRO, ERUMELI EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN
FAVOUR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.425 OF 2014 OF
SRO, KOOVAPPALLY EXECUTED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THOMAS SOURYAMKUZHI
HOUSE
RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT DATED
31.07.2003 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN
FAVOUR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALONG WITH THE TAHSILDAR
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
COURT, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. 12/2011
EXHIBIT R7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED
1.10.2011
EXHIBIT R7(e) TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 3-11-2011
EXECUTED BETWEEN RRESPONDENTS 7 TO 10 AND THE
5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R7(f) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3336/2011
EXHIBIT R7(g) TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2224/2012 EXECUTED
WHICH CONTAINS THE 3.30 ARES OF LAND
EXHIBIT R7(h) TRUE COPY OF REVISION FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT (R5) A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT FILED IN
CNR : KLHC010597972012
W.P.(C) No.17720/12 25
2026:KER:80372
EP.NO.28/2007 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT,
KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT (R5) B TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
20.11.2010 FILED BEFORE THE THASILDAR,
KANJIRAPALLY.
EXHIBIT (R5) C TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
28.01.2011 FILED AS EA.NO.9/2011 IN
EP.NO.28/07 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.
EXHIBIT (R5) D TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION DATED
29.01.2011 FILED AS EA.NO.12/2011 IN
EP.NO.28/07 FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT.
EXHIBIT (R5) E TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER 15.06.2011 IN
EP.NO.28/07 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT (R5) F TRUE COPY OF EA NO.113/2011 DATED 29.09.2011
IN EP.NO.28/07 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT (R5) G TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF EA NO.114/2011 DATED
01.10.2011 IN EP.NO.28/07 OF DISTRICT COURT,
KOTTAYAM
EXHIBIT (R5) H TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED
01.10.2011 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM IN
E.A.NOS.67,113,114/11 IN EP 28/07
EXHIBIT (R5) I TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 24.07.2012
FILED IN EP.NO.28/07
EXHIBIT (R5) J TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION DATED 08.06.2012
FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM