JUDGMENT K.K. Narendran, J. 1. The petitioner in this original petition was a toddy shop contractor from whom arrears are due and for the realisation of which revenue recovery steps are taken. The petitioner questions Ext. P-1 notice of attachment and Ext. P-4 notice of sale of immovable property in this original petition. The main question that arises for consideration is whether under section 49 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969, for short the Act, a property can be sold in revenue auction for the arrears in respect of which there is no attachment on the property under section 36 of the Act even if the very same property was attached under section 36 of the Act for other arrears due from the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the contractor of toddy shop Nos. 9 and 13 of the Coyalmannam Range for the year 1968-69. He was the contractor in respect of toddy shop No. 9 for the year 1969-70 also. For the realisation of the abkari arrears due from the petitioner revenue recovery steps were initiated and Ext. P-1 is the notice of attachment under section 36 of the Act for the arrears due from the petitioner in respect of T.S. No. 13. The petitioner then submitted Exts. P-2 and P-3 representations before the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar and the 3rd respondent-Assistant Excise Commissioner respectively. The case of the petitioner as put forth in the above representations is that only a very small amount will be actually due from the petitioner and for the payment of that amount he requested for some time. In Ext. P-3 the petitioner has got a case that he is entitled to certain remissions, of kists in view of certain orders passed by the Government. But, according to the petitioner, without considering the representations made by the petitioner the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P-4 notice of sale under section 49 (2) of the Act. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The details of the arrears due from the petitioner are given in the counter-affidavit. It is stated in para 6 of the counter-affidavit that Ext. P-1 notice of attachment issued was for an amount of Rs. 6,411.60 plus interest at 9 per cent from 1st April 1969 on Rs. 5,421 which is the amount advised in the revenue recovery certificate. The details of the arrears due from the petitioner are given in the counter-affidavit. It is stated in para 6 of the counter-affidavit that Ext. P-1 notice of attachment issued was for an amount of Rs. 6,411.60 plus interest at 9 per cent from 1st April 1969 on Rs. 5,421 which is the amount advised in the revenue recovery certificate. On receipt of the above notice of attachment the petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent-District Collector admitting that an arrear of Rs. 12,069.65 is due from him. The claim for remission of half the kist made by the petitioner is denied in the counter-affidavit on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible for the above remission. It is stated in para 8 that the payments made by the petitioner have been adjusted towards the arrears due in respect of T.S. No. 9. In para 10 it is pointed out that there are revenue recovery certificates for all the arrears claimed from the petitioner. It is also pointed out in para 11 that an amount of Rs. 200 remitted by the petitioner on 19th December 1972 which is not credited will also be adjusted towards the liability. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondents have no power under the Act to sell an immovable property under section 49 of the Act for the arrears in respect of which the property is not attached. According to the learned counsel, a property can be sold under section 49 of the Act only for the realisation of arrears in respect of which there is an attachment under section 36 of the Act. If further arrears are due from the defaulter that cannot be realised by the sale of the property without attaching the property for those amounts also under section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel refers to section 34(2) of the Act which reads: "34(2). If further arrears are due from the defaulter that cannot be realised by the sale of the property without attaching the property for those amounts also under section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel refers to section 34(2) of the Act which reads: "34(2). If within the time prescribed under sub-section (1), the defaulter objects to the claim of arrears wholly or in part, the Collector or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall inquire into the objection and record a decision before proceeding to attach the immovable property of the defaulter."� According to the learned counsel, if there is an attachment before realising the arrears by sale of the property under section 49, under section 34(2) the defaulter will get an opportunity to file an objection and satisfy that the claim made against him is either not sustainable or in any way excessive. Learned counsel also refers to Ext. P-4 notice of sale and points out that in Ext. P-4 issued in Form 16 appended to the Rules framed under the Act there is provision to indicate the arrears in respect of which the property sought to be sold was attached under section 36 of the Act. According to the learned counsel, this is also an indication that a property cannot be sold under section 49 of the Act for the realisation of the arrears in respect of which there is no attachment of the property under section 36 of the Act. 4. Learned Government Pleader contends that if there is a valid attachment under section 36 of the Act of an immovable property then there is no prohibition in the Act for selling that property under section 49 of the Act for realising other arrears also due from the defaulter in respect of which also revenue recovery steps are initiated. Learned Government Pleader points out that the only condition precedent is that in respect of the arrears sought to be realised there must be a valid, demand made under the Act. Learned Government Pleader points out that the only condition precedent is that in respect of the arrears sought to be realised there must be a valid, demand made under the Act. Learned Government Pleader refers to Eravi Pillai Krishna Pillai v. Maluk Mohammed Shaul, A.I.R. 1953 T. C. 494 wherein a Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court has said: "But section 23B, Revenue Recovery Act provides that if the arrear of revenue is not paid in terms of the demand notice the immovable property of the defaulter may be attached and sold implying thereby that it is necessary that the property should be attached before it is sold. There is nothing in the Act to show that a property may be sold under the Act without attachment. For these reasons we are of opinion that the rulings relating to sale of property under the Code of Civil Procedure without attachment cannot apply to sales under the Revenue Recovery Act."� In the above decision the Full Bench further said: "The main object of the provision is to give an opportunity to all persons who may have an interest in the property proposed to be sold to avoid the sale by paying the arrears of revenue within the appointed time. In view of the fact that a sale under the Act will extinguish the rights not only of the party to the proceedings, namely, the Thandapper-holder, but also of all other persons who may have an interest in the property due importance has to be attached to the provisions. There is also nothing in the Act which shows that the party to the proceedings, namely, the Thandapper-holder, can waive the benefit of the provision so as to prejudice the rights of other persons who may have an interest in the property."� According to the Government Pleader, an immovable property cannot be sold for the realisation of an amount not covered by a demand notice. If there is a demand notice the amount demanded can be realised by the sale of an immovable property which is already attached for an amount covered by another demand notice. If there is a demand notice the amount demanded can be realised by the sale of an immovable property which is already attached for an amount covered by another demand notice. Reference is also made to another decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Madhavan Nair v. State, I.L.R. 1951 T.C. 96 .In the above decision it is said: "Section 23B lays down that when default is made to pay up the amount as per such a demand, the immovable properties of the defaulter may be attached and sold in the manner prescribed by the Act. Thus it is clear that the revenue authorities could get jurisdiction to attach and sell the properties only after a proper demand notice had been issued to the Thandapper-holders and only on finding that the notice has not been duly honoured. The sale in the present case has violated such mandatory provisions contained in section 23 of the Revenue Recovery Act."� Learned Government Pleader further points out that this is not a case where an immovable property is going to be sold without an attachment as admittedly Ext. P-1 attachment is there. According to the learned Government Pleader, the only prohibition in the Act is that an immovable property cannot be sold under section 49 of the Act without an attachment under section 36. 5. Section 49 (1) and (2) of the Act reads: "49. Procedure for sale of immovable property." ”Immovable property attached under this Act may be sold in accordance with the following provisions, namely: (1) The sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector or the authorised officer, having jurisdiction over the village in which the property is situate. The time and place of sale shall be fixed by the Collector or the authorised officer, having jurisdiction over the village in which the property is situate. (2) Previous to the sale, the Collector or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall issue a notice thereof in English and in Malayalam and also in the language of the locality where such language is not Malayalam, specifying” (i) the name of the defaulter; (ii) the position and extent of the land and of his buildings and other known improvements thereon; (iii) the amount of revenue assessed on the land, or upon its different sections; (iv) the amount for the recovery of which the sale is ordered; (v) the proportion of the public revenue due during the remainder of the current financial year; and (vi) the time, place and conditions of sale. The notice shall be duly served and published at least thirty days before the date of sale. * * * * [Sub-sections (3) to (6) are omitted.] Section 52 (1) of the Act reads: "52. Application to set aside sale of immovable property on deposit: ” (1) Any person owning or claiming an interest in immovable property sold under thus Act may, at any time within thirty days from the date of the sale, deposit in the treasury of the taluk in which the immovable property is situate or if there be no treasury in the taluk in the nearest treasury"” (a) a sum equal to five per cent of the purchase money; and (b) a sum equal to the arrears of public revenue due on land for which the immovable property was sold together with interest thereon and cost of process, and may apply to the Collector to set aside the sale.� It is clear from section 49 that the amount sought to be realised by the sale should be indicated in the notice of sale. It need not be the amount in respect of which the property has been attached. For the realisation of the amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act the one condition that should be satisfied is that there must be a valid demand on the basis of the revenue recovery certificate. It need not be the amount in respect of which the property has been attached. For the realisation of the amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act the one condition that should be satisfied is that there must be a valid demand on the basis of the revenue recovery certificate. If the amounts sought to be realised are covered by revenue recovery certificate or certificates and are those in respect of which a valid demand or demands have been made, then under the Act there cannot be any prohibition for the realisation of those amounts by the sale of an immovable property. It is true that no immovable property can be sold under the Act without an attachment under section 36. But it cannot be insisted that in respect of every item of the arrears sought to be realised by the sale of an immovable property there must be an attachment under the Act. Hence the contention that the property in question cannot be sold under section 49 for realisation of arrears not covered by any attachment under section 36 cannot be accepted. Admittedly, in this case, the property notified for sale is one which has been attached as per Ext. P-1 notice of attachment. 6. The one other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amounts due from the petitioner are not quantified and hence no revenue recovery steps can be resorted to without a proper quantification. The statement in paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit is that the petitioner in his representation before the 1st respondent has admitted that the arrears due from him is Rs. 12,069.65. An amount of Rs. 200, which was not credited, has been subsequently adjusted towards the liability. In that case, it cannot be said that there is no proper quantification of the arrears under the Act. So, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 7. In the result, the Original Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.