Judgment :- Sukumaran, J. The two writ appeals are at the instance of the State Government and its officials. They question the correctness of the judgment in the two writ petitions-O.P. Nos. 2925 & 2929 of 1979-whereunder the learned judge quashed the revenue sale of the property of the two petitioners. The reason as given by the learned judge for nullifying the revenue sale is that the writ petitioners had become the owners of the property at the time when the revenue sale was actually conducted, that the properties did not therefore belong to the defaulter at (he time of the sale and that the revenue sale without reckoning the earlier private sale in favour of the petitioners was void. 2 The correctness of the reason so given has to be adjudged in the light of the facts and the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') particularly S.44 thereof. 3. We shall, at the outset, set out the relevant brief facts. The properties originally belonged to one A. P. Ramaswamy Gounder. He was an assessee to agricultural income-tax. Demands made for payment of the tax to the extent of Rs. 30,563.29 remained un responded to and the dues thus remained unpaid. The machinery for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act was thereupon set in motion. A notice under S.34 of the Revenue Recovery Act dated 18-10-1971 was served on the defaulter on 8-11-1971. There was no reaction from the defaulter even to that notice. A notice under S.36 attaching the property was issued on 22-6-1972. The property was notified for sale under S.49, the notification having been published in the Gazette dated 26-6-1973. The sale initially posted to 7-8-1973 but was adjourned to 27-8-1973 due to want of bidders. It was again postponed for the same reason and on 24-9-1973, the Government purchased the property under S.50 of the Act. The petitioner in O.P.No. 2929/1979, who is the husband of the petitioner in the connected case, O.P.No. 2925/1979, had participated in the auctions held on 27-8-1973 and 24-9-1973. That sale was confirmed under S.54 on 17-1-1974. The land had been taken possession of by the Village Officer on 18-10-1974. On 6-7-1979, the Village Officer notified that the ripe cardamom in the property would be sold in auction on 21-8-1979. That auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder. 4. That sale was confirmed under S.54 on 17-1-1974. The land had been taken possession of by the Village Officer on 18-10-1974. On 6-7-1979, the Village Officer notified that the ripe cardamom in the property would be sold in auction on 21-8-1979. That auction was confirmed in favour of the highest bidder. 4. It was at this time that the petitioners approached Court praying, inter alia, for quashing the revenue sale. A writ of mandamus to dispose of the representations filed by them to the Collector and the Minister under Exts.Pl dated 29-3-1976 and P2 dated 1-6-1976 was also sought for, for, according to them, those representations had remained undisposed of. The petitioners pleaded that they purchased the property under a private sale from the defaulter on 16-7-1973 and that they had not been notified about the recovery proceedings taken thereafter. 5. The facts of the case clearly established that the private sales in favour of the petitioners were effected after the service of notice of demand under the Act, on the defaulter as referred to in S.44. According to the Revenue, the private sales so effected after service of the demand notice came within the mischief of the section and consequently were denuded of any efficacy whatever. The contention of the petitioners has been pointedly dealt with and answered in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. The relevant passage can be usefully extracted: "It is submitted that as per S.44 of the Act any engagement entered into by the defaulter with any one in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand notice on him shall not be binding upon the Government. In this case the demand notice was served on the defaulter on 8-11-1971. Therefore, any transaction after 8-11-1971 is not valid and not binding on the Government. The contention of the petitioner is that she purchased the property from Sri. A.P. Ramaswamy as per sale deed No. 1412 dated 16-7-73. Even if he has 'made such transaction with the defaulter with the land in question it is not valid and binding on the Government as per S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 6. The same idea is reiterated in other paragraphs in the counter-affidavit. A.P. Ramaswamy as per sale deed No. 1412 dated 16-7-73. Even if he has 'made such transaction with the defaulter with the land in question it is not valid and binding on the Government as per S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 6. The same idea is reiterated in other paragraphs in the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 12, it was stated: "Any engagement entered into by the defaulter in respect of a property in question after the service of demand notice is not binding on the Government under S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act." 7. The petitioners have not challenged the correctness of the factual details referred to in the counter-affidavit. 8. Confronted with such a contention, counsel for the writ petitioners urged an extreme - and in a sense a novel - contention that the term 'engagement' occurring in S.44(1) will not take in a regular contract of sale and that the term is intended to cover transactions other than transfers as they are ordinarily known. Novelty of an argument is no reason to condemn it outright as observed by Lord Roskill in Home Office v. Harmon, 1982-1. All ER 532(550). This pointed contention has not been dealt with as such by the learned Judge. In the appeal, it has been complained that the learned judge had not adverted to the statements in the counter-affidavit and arguments advanced in that behalf. We find force in these submissions. The question about invalidity of the private sale in the light of S.44 of the Act, clearly pleaded in the counter-affidavit of the State, thus arises for consideration and a final decision by this Court. 9. The answer to [the question is dependent upon the scope and ambit of the term 'engagement' referred to in that Section. (While Bill leading to the enactment was being discussed on the floor of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, an Hon'ble Member sought and got an answer. This is reflected in the passage reading: (Sri. E. ChandrasekharanJNair: What is meant by 'engagement'? SH. K.M. Mani: Transaction. That is how it is mentioned about in our parts of the country.) (See Proceedings of the Kerala Legislative Assembly (1968) Vol. XXII-No. 12, page 1835). 10. We shall now endeavour to deal with the question. It is advantageous to read the Section itself at the outset. S.44 reads: "44. SH. K.M. Mani: Transaction. That is how it is mentioned about in our parts of the country.) (See Proceedings of the Kerala Legislative Assembly (1968) Vol. XXII-No. 12, page 1835). 10. We shall now endeavour to deal with the question. It is advantageous to read the Section itself at the outset. S.44 reads: "44. Effect of engagements and transfers by the defaulter: (1) Any engagement entered into by the defaulter with anyone in respect of any immovable property after the service of the written demand on him shall not be binding upon the Government. (2) Any transfer of immovable property made by a defaulter after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear. with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, shall not be binding upon the Government. (3) Where a defaulter transfers immovable property to a near relative or for grossly inadequate consideration after public revenue due on any land from him has fallen in arrear, it shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, that such transfer is made with intent to defeat or delay the recovery of such arrear, and the Collector or the authorised officer may subject to the orders of a competent court, proceed to recover such arrear of public revenue by attachment and sale of the property so transferred, as if such transfer had not taken place: Provided that, before proceeding to attach such property the Collector or the authorised officer shall - (i) give the defaulter an opportunity of being heard; and (ii) record his reasons thereafter in writing". (emphasis supplied) The Explanation to S.44 (3) is omitted as unnecessary for the purpose of this case. 11. A prefatory note on Revenue Recovery Legislation may be useful in the context. Recovery of public revenue is an important function of the State. On the effective and timely recovery of such public dues depends the timely implementation of the projects and policies of the Government, including the welfare measures and benevolent activities undertaken by a welfare State. The snail slow process of realisation of over due payments by resort to conventional litigation with its notorious tardy pace is doomed to failure, having regard to the objective of immediate realisation of public dues. It therefore stands to reason that the State Government is armed with an extraordinary remedy which would expedite realisation of the public revenue. The snail slow process of realisation of over due payments by resort to conventional litigation with its notorious tardy pace is doomed to failure, having regard to the objective of immediate realisation of public dues. It therefore stands to reason that the State Government is armed with an extraordinary remedy which would expedite realisation of the public revenue. This is based on public policies and is conceived in the larger public interest. 12. Certain public revenues are charged on the land. Some others are not. Quite often, substantial amounts due by way of public revenue partake the character of dues in respect of which there is no charge on the property of the defaulter. He who defaults payment of public revenue is ordinarily likely to be aware of the aftermath and the unsavory consequences of the State's attempt at realisation of such dues. It is understandable human nature that such a defaulter may attempt to salvage for himself properties which may otherwise be proceeded against, and if need be, sold in public auction. It is not unknown that in such situations, means, fair and foul are taken by such defaulters for secreting their properties. The State has to provide against such contingencies also, while not attempting to obstruct ordinary and honest transactions by those with whom Government have to deal. 13. It is desirable to bear in mind the background of the Act and the particular statutory provision. Different enactments relating to revenue recovery were in force in the component parts of the Kerala State -Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 4 of 1083 M.E., and the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act, 1068 M.-E. The latter two enactments were modeled after the Madras Act. S.29 of the Travancore Act corresponded to S.32 of the Madras Act. On the formation of the Travancore-Cochin State in 1949, a unified statute-the Travancore-Cochin Revenue Recovery Act, 1951-was enacted for the Travancore-Cochin area of the State. The Kerala Revenue Recovery Act came into force in 1958, and was in effect throughout the entire State of Kerala. The ideas which found expression in a fairly stuffed up statutory provision were given cuter forms under S.44. An invalidation of all private engagements in specified contingencies is common to all these enactments. 14. The word 'engagement' even according to accepted dictionaries like Shorter Oxford, Websters or Random House, takes in a contract or a promise. The ideas which found expression in a fairly stuffed up statutory provision were given cuter forms under S.44. An invalidation of all private engagements in specified contingencies is common to all these enactments. 14. The word 'engagement' even according to accepted dictionaries like Shorter Oxford, Websters or Random House, takes in a contract or a promise. Ordinarily therefore a contract of sale would also be enveloped within the term 'engagement* as referred to in S.44 (1). There is no good ground for excluding contracts such as sale, mortgage or gift from the purview of the term 'engagement'. 15. In addition to the dictionaries, decided cases also have understood and interpreted that term in that width and plenitude. We have already noted that the term was employed in the Madras Revenue Recovery Act of 1864. Other contemporaneous enactments also employed that term; such as for example the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, Act VII of 1865. Under the Irrigation Cess Act, exemption from the cess was granted by a proviso to the section if there was an anterior engagement between the Government and the ryot for the supply of water. The scope and ambit of the term 'engagement', in that context, came up for judicial determination in Kandalam Rajagopalacharyulu v. The Secretary of State for India in Council, XXII I.C. 107. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Ailing and Sadasiva Aiyar, JJ. ruled that the term'engagement' was more comprehensive than a contract or promise. The view of the Court is lucidly expressed in the following words: "The Legislature has evidently ; usea the comprehensive word 'engagement' instead of the word 'agreement' or 'contract' in order that implied undertakings (based on equitable considerations) made by Government and not merely the ordinary contracts based on regular deeds signed by parties or arising out of formal proposals and acceptances made orally or to be gathered from correspondence might be relied on by landlords, proprietors and Inamdars in support of their claims for exemption from water-cess. It We are in respectful agreement with the elucidation of the concept of 'engagement' as given by the aforesaid decision. 16. We are further fortified in our conclusion by the Legislative description of the term 'engagement' as attempted when the Travancore-Cochin State enacted the Revenue Recovery Act of 1951. It We are in respectful agreement with the elucidation of the concept of 'engagement' as given by the aforesaid decision. 16. We are further fortified in our conclusion by the Legislative description of the term 'engagement' as attempted when the Travancore-Cochin State enacted the Revenue Recovery Act of 1951. The latter portion of S.32 of that enactment reads: "and all engagements, such as private alienation of the property attached, whether by sale, mortgage, or gift or otherwise, or creation of any tenancy in respect of the said property made subsequent to the issue of demand notice under S.24, shall