The short question that arises for consideration is the sustainability of the bought-in-land proceedings concluded by the State, and the purchase made in favour of the State. Admittedly, the revenue recovery proceedings were initiated at the instance of the 6th respondent Bank. The property was put in auction and since there were no bidders, the State, purchased the same for Re.1/- as provided under Section 50 (2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. 2. The issue is no longer res integra, for the Division Bench of this Court in District Collector Alleppey and other v. Subaida Beevi and another ( 2010(1) KHC 936), has held that when an institution is covered by Section 71 of the Act and revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated for recovery of debts due to such an institution, covered by the notification, then if bought-in-land proceedings are proceeded with, necessarily the purchase should be made in favour of said institution and not the State.
WPC.8398/2014 : 2 :
Hence, the bought-in-land proceedings concluded at the auction initiated as per Exts.P3 and P4 are hereby set aside. The Government, if has taken over possession of the property shall resume the same to the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner, shall produce a certified copy of the judgment before the concerned authority, as expeditiously as possible. It is also recorded that the respondent Bank, has submitted that the entire loan has been satisfied. A certificate to that effect has also been forwarded to the Revenue authorities. Any attachment made on the property, with respect to the demand, which is the subject matter of this litigation shall be lifted.
Writ petition allowed with costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge