JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner in this original petition is one who purchased a vehicle K.L.K. 5817 in an auction in revenue recovery proceedings conducted on 16th March 1970. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext. P-5 order of the respondent-Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam refusing to give clearance certificate because of arrears of T.P.G. due on the vehicle for a period prior to the auction in revenue recovery proceedings. The question that arises for consideration is whether a purchaser in revenue auction is liable to pay the arrears of T.P.G. due on the vehicle for a period prior to the auction sale. 2. The petitioner case is as follows: The petitioner purchased the vehicle K.L.K. 5817 in public auction conducted by the Tahsildar, Meenachil on 16th March 1970 under the Revenue Recovery Act, for short the Act. The above auction was free of encumbrances for realisation of an amount of Rs. 1,360 due as arrears of motor vehicles tax. It seems that the vehicle was covered by a hire purchase agreement and when the petitioner produced the certificate of registration for effecting transfer of ownership, the respondent objected to the transfer because of the hire purchase agreement. Thereupon, the petitioner made a representation to the Tahsildar who conducted the revenue sale and the Tahsildar by Ext. P-1 held that the petitioner was not in any way liable to make good the amount due under the hire purchase agreement. In 1972 the respondent required the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 13,288.94 being alleged arrears of T.P.G. in respect of the vehicle from 1968 onwards. The petitioner disputed the above liability and made Ext. P-2 representation dated 23rd October 1972. The stand taken by the petitioner was that he is liable only for the T.P.G. from June 1970 onwards. Thereupon, by Ext. P-3 the respondent modified the demand as one for Rs. 6,355.53 for the period from March 1970 to April 1972. But the respondent made an endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle that Rs. 7,800.3 is pending realisation for the period prior to March 1970. On the petitioner coming to know of this endorsement the petitioner submitted Ext. P-3 the respondent modified the demand as one for Rs. 6,355.53 for the period from March 1970 to April 1972. But the respondent made an endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle that Rs. 7,800.3 is pending realisation for the period prior to March 1970. On the petitioner coming to know of this endorsement the petitioner submitted Ext. P-4 representation stating that he purchased the vehicle in revenue auction on 16th March 1970 and the Tahsildar who conducted the auction had informed him in writing also that there was no arrears in respect of the vehicle in question. No reply was given to the petitioner on Ext. P-4 representation, but when the petitioner applied for tax clearance certificate to enable him to sell the vehicle, the respondent by Ext. P-5 has insisted for the payment of Rs. 7,800.3 being T,P.G. arrears due for the period prior to the purchase in auction by the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances that the petitioner has approached this court with this original petition. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The statement in para 2 is that no claim for the T.P.G. arrears now claimed was preferred before the Tahsildar who conducted the auction because the collection of the same was stayed by the High Court in O.P. Nos. 3518 of 1966 and 1491 of 1972. In para 9 the averment of the petitioner that the auction sale was free of encumbrances is denied. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable for the T.P.G. arrears due on the vehicle for the period prior to the revenue sale because the revenue sale was free of all other encumbrances. In support of his contention learned counsel relies on Narayana Pillai v. Raghavan Pillai, 1953 K.L.T. 566 wherein it has been said: "A purchaser at a sale under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of land revenue gets the property free from all encumbrances because the land revenue is the first and paramount liability on the property. In support of his contention learned counsel relies on Narayana Pillai v. Raghavan Pillai, 1953 K.L.T. 566 wherein it has been said: "A purchaser at a sale under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of land revenue gets the property free from all encumbrances because the land revenue is the first and paramount liability on the property. If, however the rights of such a purchaser become vested in another person whose default occasioned the sale then the immunity from obligations that the property would have enjoyed had it remained with the stranger purchaser would cease and the obligations would again attach to the property when it comes back to the defaulter."� Learned counsel also refers to Bhaskaran Nair v. Chellappan Nair 1961 II K.L.R. 34 wherein Raghavan, J. (as he then was) has said: "A purchaser under the Revenue Recovery Act for arrears of land revenue gets the property free from all encumbrances because the land revenue is a first and paramount liability on the property but if however the rights of such a purchaser became vested in another person whose default occasioned the sale then, the immunity from obligations that the property would have enjoyed had it remained with the stranger purchaser would cease and the obligations would again attach to the property when it comes back to the defaulter."� Reliance is also placed on Ravji Bhanji v. Shah Shivji Megha A.I.R. 1951 Kutch 52 wherein it is said: "Where a revenue sale for recovery of Crown debts is held what passes to the auction-purchaser at such sale must be determined with reference to the sale proclamation and the receipt passed at such sale as they constitute the only documents of title. If they expressly sell the right, title and interest of the defaulter, it is not open to the court in a subsequent suit to speculate or enter into an enquiry whether a different title was intended to be conveyed thereby."� Learned counsel then refers to section 49 of the Act and contends that the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered must be specified in the notice of sale and in this case since the arrears of T. P. G. now claimed from the petitioner was not included in the amount sought to be recovered by the sale, the petitioner cannot now be made liable to pay the same. Reference is also made to State of Kerala v. Sreepoorna Trayeesa Vilasom Bank Ltd. 1971 K.L.J. 154 wherein this Court has held that there is nothing in section 13 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1963 to create a charge in favour of the State for vehicle tax on the vehicle, 5. Learned Government Pleader contends that as per section 11 of the T. P. G. Act, 1963 the tax due under the Act is not a charge on the vehicle. Learned Government Pleader refers to section 60 of the Act and contends that the sale will be free of all encumbrances only in the case of immovable properties sold for arrears of public revenue due on them and the sale in question being not that of an immovable property it cannot be contended for a moment that the sale was free of all encumbrances. Learned Government Pleader then contends that what was sold in revenue sale is the interest that the defaulter had in the property sold and since the arrears of T. P. G. prior to the date of sale was also due on the vehicle, the defaulter interest in the vehicle was only what was left after making good the said T. P. G. arrears. Learned Government Pleader also points out that the interest of the Government to the extent of the right to realise the arrears of tax due under the T. P. G. Act cannot be considered to have been sold in the revenue sale in question. In support of this contention, learned Government Pleader relies on Pankajakshy Amma v. Lekshmi Pillai 1962 K.L.J. 1277 wherein it is said: "In view of the above clear provisions in the Act, nothing further is needed to show that a revenue sale in this State is of the defaulter property and not of Government property. Inspite of the Privy Council dictum (cited above) it is difficult for me to understand why the Government interest in the land should be sold in auction for realisation of Government dues therefrom. Inspite of the Privy Council dictum (cited above) it is difficult for me to understand why the Government interest in the land should be sold in auction for realisation of Government dues therefrom. Suffice it to say here that nothing in the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act, 1068, under which the instant revenue sale took place, or, in the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951, lends support to the contention that the interest sold at a revenue sale is the Government interest in the land) and not of the defaulting landholder."� Learned Government Pleader then refers to section 3 of the T.P.G. Act, 1963 and contends that as per the above section no liability has been cast upon the vehicle for the tax due. Learned Government Pleader then refers to Abdul Kassim v. State of Kerala 1964 K.L.T. 102 and Mathai v. Oommen 1962 K.L.T. 12 and contends that there is no warranty of title in a court sale or in a revenue sale and the sale is only of the interest of the debtor in the properties sold. According to the learned Government Pleader, in this case, the interest of the previous owner in the vehicle was its market value less the arrears of tax under the T.P.G. Act due to the Government. 6. Section 2 (b) of the T.P.G. Act, 1963 reads: "All immovable property brought to sale on account of arrears of public revenue due on land shall be sold free of all encumbrances, and if any balance shall remain after liquidating the arrears with interest thereon and cost of process, it shall be paid over to the defaulter."� Section 2(b) of the T.P. G. Act, 1963 reads: 'Operator means the owner or the person having possession or control of the vehicle and includes any person whose name is entered in the permit as holder thereof,"� A sale of immovable property for arrears of public revenue becomes free of encumbrances because of the specific provision in section 60 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968. There is no indication in the Act that any other sale of movable or immovable properties will be free of encumbrances. Notice of sale of movable properties under the Act is to be in Form 2. There is no indication in the form also that the sale will be free of all encumbrances. There is no indication in the Act that any other sale of movable or immovable properties will be free of encumbrances. Notice of sale of movable properties under the Act is to be in Form 2. There is no indication in the form also that the sale will be free of all encumbrances. So, it cannot be said that the sale of movables under the Act will be free of encumbrances. Under section 2 (b) of the T.P.G. Act, 1963 the petitioner will be the operator of the vehicle he purchased in revenue sale. As per sections 7 and 11 of the T.P.G. Act, 1963 the petitioner will be liable for the T.P.G. arrears of the vehicle for the period prior to his purchase. So, the petitioner has no escape from the payment of arrears demanded from him if there is no bar of limitation. Moreover, what is purchased by the petitioner is only the interest of the defaulter in the vehicle. This is subject to the right of the State to realise the arrears of T.P.G. and will not include the right to realise the above arrears. In this view of the matter also, the right to realise the arrears is not lost by the revenue sale. The petitioner contention that the revenue sale was free of encumbrances is denied in the counter affidavit. As the notice of sale has to be in Form 2 no weight can be attached to the above contention. Ext. P-5 is perfectly legal and valid. 7. The original petition is dismissed. No costs.