Sujir Kesav Naik & Co. vs The District Collector, Kollam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/30TH PHALGUNA 1933** ## **WP(C).No. 10089 of 2007 (A) -----------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **-------------------** **1. SUJIR KESAV NAIK,PARTNER OF M/S.SUJIR KESAV NAIK & CO., KADAPPAKKADA,KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER N.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 56,S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR,SHYLUM NO.30 ARADHANA NAGAR, KOLAM-19. (DIED)** - **ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 IMPLEADED** **2. SUJIR DINESH NAYAK, S/O. LATE SRI.SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8 KESTAHOORI BUILDING, CHURCH GATE RECLAMATION, MUMBAI – 400 020.** **3. SUJIR ANANTH NAYAK, AGED 48 YEARS, -DO- -DO-** **4. SUJIR SAROJINI NAYAK, W/O. LATE SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, AGED 75 YEARS RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **5. SUJIR SURESH NAYAK,LATE SRI. SUJIR KESAV NAYAK, AGED 58 YEARS RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-** **(ALL THE ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SRI.N.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, AGED 56, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, SHYLAM NO.30, ARADHANA NAGAR, KOLLAM – 19).** - **THE LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASED PETITIONER ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS 2 TO 5, AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.1135/2008 DATED 14/03/2008.** **BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN** **SRI.S.SUJITH** - **SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY** **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM.** **svs** **..........2/-...** **( 2 )** ## **WPC. NO.10089/2007** ## **2. THE TAHSILDAR (RR) KOLLAM.** ## **3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENT), COMMERCIAL TAXES,KOLLAM.** **4. CANARA BANK,MAIN BRANCH KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER.** ## **** ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED** **5. JAISON G. OOMMEN, AGED 34, S/O. GEEVARGHESE OOMMEN RESIDING AT VARRORMEDATHILAZHIKATH VEEDU, PUTHOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA.** **** IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R5 AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.5372 ON 10/04/2007.** ## ***** ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED** **6. K.R. USHASREE, SAI EXPORT ENTERPRISES, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM.** ***** ADDL. 6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/07/2007 IN I.A.8829/2007.** ## **# ADDL. R7 IMPLEADED** **7. GITANJALI PAI, SUJIR VILLA, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT 18 FORDS ROAD, RANDOLDH NEW JERSY 07869 USA REPRESENTED BY HER POWER ATTORNEY P.K. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTUPUTHEN VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM** - **# ADDL R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER I.A.9684/2007 IN ORDER DATED 24/07/2007.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. SUDHEESH KUMAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE R6 BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT BY ADV. SRI.R.RENJITH BY ADV. SRI.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI (SR.)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-03-2012, ALONG WITH WPC. 10269/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **svs** **W.P.(C). NO. 10089/2007** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN KERALA KAUMUDI DAILY DATED 19/03/2007.** - **P2: COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ON 20/03/2007 BEFORE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS.** - **P3: COPY OF PETITION DATED 02/04/2007 FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **P4: COPY OF PETITION DATED 27/04/2007 FILED BY PETITIONER.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R1(a):COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT NOTICE DATED 22/10/2000 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ACT.** **R1(b & c):COPIES OF THE NOTICES DATED 20/02/2007.** **R1(d) i & ii:COPY OF VALUATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER** **R1(e & f):COPIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALES CONDUCTED ON 27/03/2007 AND 21/04/2007.** **R1(g, h, i, & j):COPIES OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTERS PERTAINING TO THE SAID PROPERTIES.** **R1(k):COPY OF THE SAID APPLICATION.** **R1(l):COPY OF COMMUNICATION SERVED AS PER LETTER DATED 2702/2004** **R1(m):COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/03/2007.** ## **ANNEXURES** **R5(a):COMMUNICATION DATED 27/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AFTER THE AUCTION.** ## **R5(b):COMMUNICATION DATED 02/04/2007 WITH ENCLOSURES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.** - **R5(c):AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 04/01/1999 BY THE PETITIONER'S SON REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL SALAM.** - **R5(d):AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 10/05/1999 BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF ABDUL SALAM.** **R5(e):COMPRISE DECREE DATED 22/12/2000 IN O.S. NO.137/1983 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPLE SUB COURT, KOLLAM /TRUE COPY/** **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **svs** ## **P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON,J.** ========= = = = = = = = = **W.P.(C) No. 10089,10285, 13566,10269 of 2007 &** **29072 of 2008** = = = = = = = == = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of March, 2012 ## J U D G M E N T The subject matter involved in all these writ petitions pertains to the correctness and sustainability of the revenue sale conducted by the State/Department of revenue for realisation of the arrears of sales tax from a firm which was being run in the name of 'Sujir Keshav Naik and Company'. 2. The sequence of events is discussed with reference to W.P.(C).No.10089/2007, which is treated as the lead case. The petitioner is one of the partners of Messrs. Sujir Keshav Naik and Company . In fact, the firm was constituted with two brothers by name, Sujir Keshav Naik and Sujir Ganesh Naik. In connection with the business in procurement of raw cashew nuts, processing and sale of 2 cashew kernels and allied products, there was some default in clearing the liability towards the Sales Tax Department . Steps were taken by the department by proceeding against the firm as well as the partners. As a matter of fact, the partner by name Sujir Ganesh Naik died on 9-03-2006 and the other partner Sujir Keshav Naik took his last breath on 6-10-2007. 3. Before the demise of Sujir Keshav Naik, the proceedings pursued by the departmental authorities causing the concerned properties to be sold in public auction, pursuant to Ext.P1 sale notice, were subjected to challenge before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.10089/2007. After the demise of the petitioner, the legal heirs have been brought on record and they are pursuing the matter further. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the properties notified to be sold as per Ext.P1 are three different items, which were proposed to be sold on different dates, ie., on 27-3-2007 , 28-3-2007and 29-3-2007. The petitioner came to know about the sale only on 20-3-2007 and obviously, though Ext.P1 notification is dated on 20-2-2007, the same 3 was said to be published only on 19-3-2007 , notifying the sale scheduled on 27-3-2007 and on such other dates as mentioned hereinbefore. 5. On coming across the proposed sale, the petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation before the District Collector on the very same date, ie., on 20-3-2007, pointing out various irregularities in connection with the sale proceedings. The petitioner also rushed to this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10089 of 2007 on 22-3-07, much before the sale. The said matter came up for admission on 23-3-2007, on which date it was adjourned to 26-3-2007 for getting instructions. On 26-3-2007 the writ petition was admitted, also granting interim order, whereby the confirmation of sale was stayed for three months, which was subsequently extended until further orders . 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, pursuant to the sale proceedings, the first item notified as per Ext.P1 was sold on 27-3-2007, which was purchased by the additional fifth respondent, who was subsequently brought into the party array, being the highest bidder. Sale in respect of the second item was adjourned on due to some 4 reason and thereafter, the sale was conducted on 21-4-2007, when the additional sixth respondent turned to be the highest bidder. Pursuant to the demise of Ganesh Naik on 9-3-2006, the sole legal heir, his daughter, has been brought in as the additional seventh respondent. In view of the sale of the concerned properties, the petitioner was forced to file further petitions before the District Collector by way of Ext.P3 and P4 in respect of two different items of properties, seeking to set aside the same, which were filed under section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the proceedings have not been finalised by the District Collector, either by passing appropriate orders on Ext.P2 (which was filed before the sale) and so also on Ext.P3 and P4 (which were filed after the sale). 7. W.P.(C)No. 10269/2007 has been filed by a person who is a total stranger to the proceedings, stating that he is the actual party who is in possession of the properties, item No.1 and 2, sold as notified in Ext.P1. The prayer in the said writ petition is to set aside the auction notice Ext.P3 (which is the same as Ext.P1 in the other case 5 mentioned above). It is stated that the said petitioner has approached the District Collector by filing Ext.P4 representation, which is stated as pending. 8. W.P.(C) No.29072/2008 is a writ petition filed by the legal representatives of the original petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 10089/2007. The grievance of the said petitioners is that, by virtue pursuant of the Amnesty Scheme notified by the Government, enabling the assessees/defaulters to settle the liability, the petitioners have also preferred an application as borne by Ext.P1, which is stated as pending. The relief sought for is to direct the concerned respondents to consider the said application and to pass appropriate orders enabling the petitioners to clear the entire liability, availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme . 9. W.P.(C) No.13566/2007 is filed by the daughter and legal heir of the deceased Sujir Ganesh Naik contending that the property concerned herein which is notified to be sold by the revenue (i.e, item No.3 of Ext.P1 in W.P(C) No.10089/2007) was in fact conveyed to the writ petitioner by her father, by virtue of the settlement deed bearing 6 No.4314/2002 executed on 20-9-2002. The prayer in the said writ petition is that appropriate direction might be given to proceed against the other properties and to spare the property of the writ petitioner and in turn, a prayer has been made to set aside Ext.P7/P8 notices as well, which are the same as the impugned notices in the other case. 10. W.P.(C)No.10285/2007 is filed by a Bank who is stated as having much rights and interests over the properties; particularly item No.1 and 2 of Ext.P5/P6 publication/notice (same as Ext.P1 of the 'lead case'). The case of the petitioner Bank is that the sale conducted by the revenue authorities is bad due to various reasons; particularly because of the irregularities and other aspects as mentioned in the writ petition. It is stated that, item No. 1 and 2 of the properties as above were originally mortgaged with the Bank and since the borrowers turned to be defualters, the Bank filed an original Suit, which was subsequently transferred to the DRT, where a decree in favour of the Bank was passed . Pursuant to the sale certificate issued, the Bank proceeded with steps for realisation of the due amounts, when it came across the 7 notification issued by the revenue, subjecting the said properties for sale, for realisation of the sales tax arrears. 11. In fact, the Bank had approached this Court earlier by filing O.P No.2398/2001 stating that, by virtue of the mortgage created much earlier, the Bank was having a vested right and a prior charge to proceed against the properties concerned. However, the said original petition was dismissed, placing reliance on the verdict passed by this Court in **Sherry Jacob vs. Canara Bank (2004 (3) KLT 1089)** . However in view of the settled position of the law by virtue of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in **Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and Others (2009 (4)SCC 94),** the case projected by the petitioner Bank with reference to such 'priority right' no more subsists and the question has to be answered against the Bank; which issue is stated as not pressed as well . The dispute raised in the present writ petition is more with regard to the irregularities in the sale; particularly when the sale is stated as effected without proper notice/publication and contrary to the mandate as contained in Ext.P4 Circular (whereby it has been stipulated by the 8 Government that, when the property involved is subject to sale, all the creditors shall be put on notice, so as to procure maximum revenue). The prayer is to set aside Ext.P5/P6 and to conduct the sale proceedings in respect of the third item notified first and then to proceed against the other properties, if necessitated. 12. The respondents, both the revenue as well as the successful bidders, have filed counter affidavits in the concerned cases, asserting that the sale was conducted by the revenue adhering to all the relevant provisions of law. It is stated that the property was valued by the departmental authorities and it was accordingly, that the sale was notified on the relevant dates projecting the 'upset price', fixed on the basis of the market value. The first item of property was sold for Rs.1.16 crores, which was bid by the additional fifth respondent and the second item was sold on 21-4-2007 for a sum of Rs. 1,15,40,000/-(Rupees one crore fifteen lakh forty thousand only)which was bid by the additional sixth respondent . It is the consistent case of the respondents concerned, that the sale is not liable to be interfered under any circumstances; more so, when the 9 concerned bidders are bonafide purchasers of the property, who have responded to the relevant notification/publication and have procured necessary funds from different corners and deposited the same against the sale consideration finalized in the public auction. 13. The learned Government Pleader submits that the actual liability of the defaulter and the partners was in respect of the Sales Tax arrears due from 1963-64 onwards , to the tune of Rs. 2,26,15,741/- plus the Gratuity payable to the concerned employees to the tune of Rs.17,15,988/-. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that there was some other property as well, which was sold and a sum of Rs. 19,00,100/- was recovered; the sale in respect of which was confirmed as early as on 19-10-2006 and it does not form the subject matter of challenge in any of these writ petitions. 14. By virtue of the amount generated in respect of the sale of the 1[st] and 2nd items of properties on 27-3-2007 and 21-4-2007 respectively, the liability of the firm stands cleared in all respect. It is however stated that the sale has not been confirmed in view of the interim order passed by 10 this Court and the pendency of the writ petition is stated as the reason for not passing any orders on Ext.P3/P4 preferred by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.10089/2007. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents in W.P.C. No.10285/2007 that the case of the petitioner Bank, referring to the priority right by virtue of the mortgage cannot subsist any longer in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Central Bank's Case **2009 (4) SCC 94** . Reference is also made to Section 26 B of the KGST Act and so also, Section 3 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 15. Mr.Pathrose Mathai, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the respondents submits that the issue is only with regard to the 'second item' of the property; which on sale has procured much more amount than the market value fixed by the Bank. As per the Bank's valuation, it is having worth of Rs.1,12,00,000/-( Rupees one crore twelve lakhs only) as given in Ext.P8, whereas the property has been sold to the highest bidder for a total sum of Rs. 1,15,40,000/-. This submission is sought to be resisted by Mr.C.K.Karunakaran the learned Senior Counsel for the Bank stating that the above valuation was of more than 'two 11 years' prior to the date of sale and hence cannot be pressed in. It is pointed out before the Court that the only legal heir of the late Ganesh Naik is the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) NO. 13566/2007, who has not raised any dispute with regard to the said sale. 16. The learned Counsel appearing for the successful bidder in respect of the two items notified as per Ext.P1 submits that the challenge raised by the writ petitioner against the manner and conduct of sale, does not have any merit or bonafides. The learned Counsel submits that W.P.(C) No.10269 of 2007 filed by Mr.A.Abdul Salam does not deserve to be considered for the obvious reason that the very same petitioner, referring to the alleged possession, rights and liberties on the basis of some agreement executed between him and the erstwhile owner of the property, had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.14040 of 2007, projecting a claim over the property in question. The matter was considered by this Court and it was dismissed as infructuous. This being the position, nothing further survives to be considered in W.P.(C) 10269 of 2007. It is also stated that the petitioner Bank in 12 W.P.(C) 10285 of 2007 has not filed any petition or proceeding before the District Collector, under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act and as such, the challenge raised before this Court as to the alleged irregularity in sale is not liable to be entertained. 17. After hearing all the learned Counsel for the parties concerned and so also the learned Senior Government Pleader, this Court finds that the crux of the matter involved in these writ petitions is with regard to further proceedings to be pursued as to the sale conducted in respect of items 1 and 2 of the properties scheduled in Ext. P1 notification. ## **WP(C)No.13566/2007** 18. Admittedly, no sale has taken place in respect of item No.3 property notified in Ext. P1 notification in W.P.(C) 10089 of 2007, which is the subject matter involved in W.P.(C) 13566 of 2007 as well. The case of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13566/07, who is stated as the sole legal heir and daughter of the late Sujir Ganesh Naik, is that Exts.P7 and P8 notices in respect of the Revenue Sale pertaining to her property (which is item No.3 or Ext.P1, as mentioned 13 above) are liable to be set aside. The challenge raised against the said notices has virtually become infructuous, in so far as the sale in respect of the said property has not taken place and by virtue of sale of the other two items, the liability to the 'Revenue' stands already settled, as stated by the learned Senior Government Pleader, though confirmation of sale is pending consideration before the District Collector. In the said circumstance, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the reliefs sought for in **W.P.(C) No.13566 of 2007** and the same is dismissed accordingly. ## **W.P.(C) No.10269 of 2007** : 19. With regard to the prayer in W.P.(C) 10269 of 2007, it is to be noted that the said petitioner is stated as in possession of the property , which was already notified for sale as per Ext. P1 notification in W.P.(C)10089 of 2007 (produced in this petition as well, as Ext.P3). The prayer is only to direct the first respondent/District Collector to dispose of Ext. P4 petition before confirmation of sale of the property mentioned in Ext. P3. Obviously, there is no challenge against the sale conducted pursuant to Ext.P3. 14 This being the position, this Court does not find it as a fit case calling for interference. Even otherwise, the prayer to direct the respondents to dispose of Ext.P4 petition does not refer to any settled/concrete right of the petitioner, who allegedly is enjoying the property by virtue of possession, referring to some or other agreement. This Court finds that, this is not the Forum for entertaining any such relief with reference to the rights and liberties, if any, arising out of a contract/agreement and also as to the alleged grievance projected in Ext.P4, in the absence of any specific challenge against the sale, which has taken place pursuant to Ext.P3. Interference is declined and **W.P.(C)No.100269/2007** is dismissed. ## **W.P.(C) No.29072 OF 2008:** 20. Coming to W.P.(C)No.29072 of 2008, the case of the petitioner is that he has sought for the benefit of 'Amnesty Scheme' by filing Ext. P1 application dated 24.06.2008 . The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that they have not received Ext.P1 application. It is 15 ## stated in paragraph '3' of the counter affidavit in the following terms: _“It is submitted that, contention of the petitioner, that the petitioner had filed Exhibit P1 application before the 2[nd] respondent is incorrect. This respondent again verified office records and found that no such application preferring Amnesty Scheme had received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Special Circle, Kollam. The Distribution Register kept and maintained in the office has been verified from 24.06.2008 onwards and found that no such application was received in the office. Moreover , there is a separate Register in the office, being kept for making entries of file movement in the office named as Register for Amnesty. The Register has also been subjected to detailed verification and found that no such receipt of Amnesty Application dated 24.06.2008 is seen entered. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that an application dated 24.06.2008 was filed and the same has not been disposed of so far is incorrect and wrong. Neither the petitioner nor the Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner had made any enquiry with this respondent about the fate of such so claimed Amnesty Application. Therefore the prayers of the petitioner in the writ petition are only liable to be rejected.”_ The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averment of the second respondent is not correct, in so far as the petitioner has filed I.A.No.15000/2010 dated 21[st] October, 2010, producing a copy of the postal receipt, so as to substantiate the factum of sending Ext.P1 application by registered post on 24.06.2008 itself, ie. the date of Ext.P1. 21. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand submits that, it was after filing the said I.A.in 16 October, 2010, that the proceedings and files were verified and the counter affidavit was filed on 16th August, 2011. This Court finds that the specific averments in paragraph '3' of the said counter affidavit have not been rebutted by the petitioner by filing any reply affidavit. That apart, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the 'Amnesty Scheme' notified by the Government came to an end on 30[th] September, 2011 and as on date, no Scheme survives. This being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to have any relief as sought for in the writ petition. **W.P.(C) No.29072/08** fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. **W.P.(C) Nos.10089 OF 2007 & 10285 OF 2007:** 22. With regard to W.P.(C) 10089 of 2007 filed by the petitioner Sujir Kesav Naik (represented by Power of Attorney Holder) and W.P.(C) 10285 of 2007 filed by the Bank, the issue is with regard to correctness of the sale proceedings. Admittedly, confirmation of sale has not been granted by the District Collector because of the interim order passed by this Court on 26.03.2007 in the above writ petitions. 23. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 10089 of 2007 17 approached this Court much prior to the actual date of sale i.e. On 23.03.2007, when the sale was scheduled to be held on 27.03.2007. But the specific prayer in the writ petition was to direct the first respondent to consider Ext. P2 and pass appropriate orders and to intercept further proceedings. Ext. P2 is a petition dated 20.03.2007 filed by the writ petitioner, prior to the sale, with regard to the irregularity in proceeding further. However, since no interim stay was granted in conducting the sale, but for the intervention made by this Court as to the confirmation of sale, the properties were sold in auction and they were purchased by the Additional respondents Nos.5 and 6, being the highest bidders. It was pursuant to the sale as aforesaid, that the petitioner filed Exts.P3 and P4 petitions under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act before the first respondent, pointing out the irregularities and such other aspects. Non-finalisation of Exts.P3 and P4 is with reference to pendency of the writ petition. This Court finds that the matter requires to be finalised by the first respondent, by passing appropriate orders, in accordance with law, more so since, quite a lot of disputed facts are 18 there, as to the various requirements to be satisfied in connection with the sale. These are matters to be considered and decided, based on the specific pleadings and evidence to be let in, which does not come within the realm of this Court, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 24. There is a contention for the additional respondents 5 and 6 in W.P.(C)No.10089 of 2007 and the additional respondents 8 and 9 in W.P.(C) No.10285 of 2007 that, after having admitted the matters keeping the same pending for quite long, it may not be proper to relegate the parties to approach the statutory authority at this distance of time. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said proposition, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in **(2008) 12 SCC 675** ( _**State of Uttar Pradesh and another vs. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanji Vikas Nigam**_ ## _**Sangharsh Samiti and others)**_ (See. Paragraphs 37 and 38). 25. The next question to be considered is the contention raised by the successful bidders with regard to non- filing of any petition under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act by the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) 10285 of 19 2007. True, the petitioner Bank did not file any such petition before the District Collector and approached this Court, by filing the above writ petition on 23.03.2007, ie. prior to the date of sale scheduled on 27.03.2007. This Court chose to entertain the matter and passed appropriate orders, posting the case along with the connected matters. The question is whether the petitioner Bank could be nonsuited for not having filed any petition before the District Collector under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act, in such circumstance. 26. While dealing with the issue in W.P.(C) 10089 of 2007, this Court has found that the matter requires to be considered by the District Collector, who has to pass appropriate orders in Exts.P3 and P4 petitions filed therein, under Section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Considering the fact that the Bank has also approached this Court much prior to the date of sale, i.e. on 23.03.2007 and since the issue is pending consideration before the District Collector, this Court finds that the Bank shall also be given opportunity of hearing to substantiate their case with regard to the alleged irregularities in conducting the sale 20 27. In the above circumstances, both the above writ petitions (i.e. W.P.(C) Nos. **10089 of 2007 and 10285 of 2007)** are disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass final orders with regard to confirmation of sale, which is now pending consideration. Orders as above, shall be passed in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the successful bidders . It is further made clear that the interim order passed by this Court will continue till such time. smm **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** 21 22