TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 581X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the findings and conclusions reached, for the present, need not have to consider the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by the appellant in the writ appeals. The result of those appeals would now depend on the orders that may be passed by the State Government in the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act against the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The matter is remitted back to the State Government to restore the revision petition filed by the petitioner on its file and consider the same in accordance with law after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the contesting respondent. - W.A. Nos. 31 of 2003 & W.A. Nos. 977 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-9- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated recovery proceedings, to recover the sales tax due for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89, by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. In aid of the said recovery proceedings the authorities had attached five cents of land in Survey No. 59/12 of Taliparamba desom. In the said land there existed a building. After the said attachment, the revenue recovery authorities have brought the attached property for sale by way of public auction. In the said public auction the fourth respondent in O.P. No. 32506 of 2000 and first respondent in W.A. No. 977 of 2006 has purchased the property for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000. The revenue recovery authorities have confirmed the sale made in favour of the contesting respondent in spite of there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aji. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Board of Revenue, Shri. Subair Haji has filed a revision petition before the State Government under section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. The State Government by its order dated October 24, 2000 has dismissed the revision petition. Aggrieved by the said order, Shri. Subair Haji has preferred the original petition under article 226 of the Constitution before this court. The auction purchaser, Shri. T.V. Krishnan has filed O.P. No. 12000 of 2001, inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus to the respondents for grant of sale certificate and also for registering the property in his name pursuant to confirmation of sale made by the revenue authorities. This court, by order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory revision, the said revision requires to be heard and decided by the very officer and it cannot be heard by one officer and orders passed by yet another officer. Therefore, it is asserted in the petition that the orders passed by the State Government dated October 24, 2000 is in violation of one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. Shri. Mohammed Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while reiterating the contentions canvassed by the petitioner in the writ petition, brings to our notice the order passed by the State Government under section 83(2) of the Act and then submits that even in the order it is disclosed that one N. Sudhakaran, the then Additional Secretary to Government, Revenue Department h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion was heard by one officer and the order is passed on the revision petition by yet another officer. This, in our opinion, is in total violation of one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. However, learned counsel appearing for the additional fourth respondent, Shri. Maniprasad would submit that under certain circumstances such an order can be passed by an officer who did not hear the matter, but by making use of the notes and points made by his predecessor. In support of that contention, learned counsel has brought to our notice the observations made by the apex court. The decision on which reliance was placed by learned counsel would not support him in any manner whatsoever. That was a case where an executive order c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hearing the parties to the lis, has passed the impugned order. The order so passed, in our opinion, is not only arbitrary but also illegal and in total violation of one of the facets of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained by us. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is allowed. In view of the findings and conclusions reached by us, for the present, we need not have to consider the merits or demerits of the case pleaded by the appellant in the writ appeals. The result of those appeals would now depend on the orders that may be passed by the State Government in the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 83(2) of the Revenue Recovery Act against the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
