The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext. P5 sale notice dated 16.09.2014 issued by the second respondent to have the sale conducted by 12.30 p.m. today. It is contended that Ext. P4 notice issued by the said respondent is not in conformity with the statutory requirement under Section 49 of the Revenue Recovery Act and further that the amount satisfied by the petitioner at different points of time pursuant to Ext. P1 judgment and Ext. P2 interim order has not been given credit to.
2. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a statement is being filed today. A copy of the communication dated 12.11.2014 from the Manager, Office of the SDT (RR), Kozhikkode to the AGM (Recovery) is also made available for perusal of this Court. The figures mentioned therein are in the following terms :
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits, with reference to the materials on record, that the liability was directed to be liquidated earlier as per Ext. P1 judgment. Though there was some delay in effecting the payment as specified, the petitioner effected total payment of nearly Rs. 6 lakhs flowing from Ext. P1. The delay in this regard was sought to be condoned by filing I.A.
No. 1299 of 2013 and as per Ext. P2 order, delay was condoned, subject to continuation of payment. Admittedly, there occurred some default again, which led to Ext. P5 notice. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had also approached the Sub Court, Vatakara by filing O.S. No. 192 of 2012 against the sale notice published in the year 2012.
4. In response to the contention raised by the petitioner as to the infringement of statutory provisions i.e. Section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act while issuing Ext. P5 sale notice, the learned standing counsel submits that the sale was originally scheduled to be conducted on 16.09.2014 and since same did not take place on that day, it was postponed to 13.11.2014, which is well within the 60 days of 16.09.2014 and as such, no fresh paper publication is necessary. Be that as it may, but no materials have been produced by the respondents to show that paper publication was effected in respect of the sale sought to be conducted on '16.09.2014'. This Court does not intend to probe into such aspects, since the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to discharge the entire liability to the Bank and that the prayer is only to provide some installments in this regard, giving credit to the payments already effected by the petitioner. The learned counsel also submits and undertakes that the petitioner will take necessary steps to withdraw the proceedings pending before the Civil Court (O.S. No. 192 of 2012 of Sub Court, Vatakara). The said submission is recorded.
5. On going through the copy of the communication/statement produced for perusal of this Court, this Court finds that payments effected by the petitioner after Ext. P1 judgment do not appear to have been included in the column of remittance. In the said circumstances, the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the statement to the petitioner showing the outstanding liability as on the date of Ext. P1 judgment and the subsequent remittances made by him, leading to Ext. P2 and further remittance, if any, pointing out the balance amount to be satisfied. This shall be let known to the petitioner, at the earliest, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The balance amount as above shall be cleared by way of 'six' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected within one month thereafter; followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed with further steps to cause the property to be sold in accordance with law. It is also made clear that no prayer for extension of time will be considered under any circumstances.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the respondent for further steps.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)