ORDER :- Original petition is filed challenging the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act taken against the petitioners for arrears of agricultural income. In the auction conducted, Government purchased the property of an extent of 22.83 acres comprised in Sy. Nos. 52/2, 60/1, 60/2, 61/1 and 61/2 in Puthady Thavalam, Udumbanchola, on 5-5- 1982 under S. 50(2)(i) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Thereafter the sale was confirmed by Ext. P2. Challenge is against the purchase of the property by the Government. Even though larger contentions were raised challenging the validity of the provisions, which enable the Government to purchase the property at a nominal value, I am considering only the contention raised as to the procedural aspect, since according to me, petitioner should succeed on that plea. 2. Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act deals with bidding on behalf of Government. Under S. 50(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act, when an immovable property is for sale under S. 49(2) for the recovery of arrears of public revenue, if there is no bid or if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the amount, the officer conducting the sale shall postpone sale to another date which shall not be later than sixty days from the date of the first sale. Then on the postponed date under S. 50(2)(i) if there is no bid, the officer conducting the sale may purchase the property on behalf of the Government for an amount of ten paise. In the particular case, there is no dispute regarding the facts. Properties were brought to sale on 30-3-1982. On that day since there were no bidders, sale was adjourned to 16-4-1982. On that day one James bid the land for Rs. 1,22,750/-. Since the aforesaid James did not deposit the 15% of the bid amount, the sale was adjourned to 5-5-1982. On that day, it is stated that there were no bidders and the Government purchased it under S. 50(2)(i) of the Revenue Recovery Act. Now, the question is whether the procedure adopted in allowing the Government to purchase the property in the auction that was held on 5-5-1982 is correct 3. As already stated, on 16-4-1982 one James bid the property for Rs. 1,22,750/-. But he did not pay the amount. The sale was then adjourned to 5-5-1982. Now, the question is whether the procedure adopted in allowing the Government to purchase the property in the auction that was held on 5-5-1982 is correct 3. As already stated, on 16-4-1982 one James bid the property for Rs. 1,22,750/-. But he did not pay the amount. The sale was then adjourned to 5-5-1982. On that day since there were no bidders, the property was purchased in the name of the Government, under S. 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Section 50(1) and (2) of the Revenue Recovery Act is as follows: "50. Bidding on behalf of Government - (1) When an immovable property is put up for sale at the time and place specified in the notice under clause (2) of S. 49 for the recovery of arrears of public revenue due on land, if there be no bid or if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the said arrears and those subsequently accruing due up to the date of sale, together with interest and cost of process, the officer conducting the sale, shall postpone the sale to another date which shall not be later than sixty days from the date of the first sale and give notice of the subsequent sale as required under clause (4) of S. 49. (2) When the property is put up for sale on the date to which it was postponed under sub-section (1) at the time and place specified in the notice- (i) if there be no bid, the officer conducting the sale may purchase the property on behalf of the Government for an amount of ten paise; (ii) if the highest bid be insufficient to cover the arrears referred to in sub-section (1) and those subsequently accruing due up to the date of the sale and interest and cost of process, such officer may bid on behalf of the Government for an amount higher than such bid by ten paise, and in either case the Government shall acquire the property subject to the provisions of this Act". The Section envisages the bidding on behalf of the Government under the following circumstances: (1) the property should have been put for sale at the time and place mentioned in the notice under Section 49(2) of the Act. The Section envisages the bidding on behalf of the Government under the following circumstances: (1) the property should have been put for sale at the time and place mentioned in the notice under Section 49(2) of the Act. On that day if there is no bid or if the highest bid a insufficient to cover the arrears, then the officer shall postpone the same to another date; (2) on the adjourned date if there is no bid or if the highest bid is insufficient to cover the amount due, then the officer may bid on behalf of the Government for an amount higher than such bid by ten paise. Thus the conditions mentioned should be satisfied on two Consecutive dates. When the property is posted for sale there should be no bidders or the bid amount should be less than the amount to be recovered on both these dates. This means, supposing the property is bid by a person on a particular date on which the sale is conducted and subsequently the sale is set aside and on the day on which the property is again posted for sale, if there are no bidders, the officer cannot straighway bid the property on behalf of the Government. Only if it is found that on two consecutive dates on which the property is posted for sale there are ho bidders or the amount of bid will not cover the amount due, the bidding can be made on behalf of the Government. Here on 16-4-1982 both the conditions were not satisfied. The sale was adjourned to 5-5-1982 not because there are no bidders on 16-4-1982. According, to me, the conditions mentioned in Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act are mandatory. It has to be satisfied that there are no bidders for the property or that the bid amount will not satisfy the amount due. This satisfaction can be arrived at only if on the two consecutive dates the conditions are satisfied. Government is not concerned with the purchase of the property, since it only wants to recover the money. 3. In view of the above, sale is set aside and Exts. Pl, P2, P4, P9, P11 and P13 are quashed. Respondents are free to bring the property again for auction, if the petitioner does not pay the bid amount. Government is not concerned with the purchase of the property, since it only wants to recover the money. 3. In view of the above, sale is set aside and Exts. Pl, P2, P4, P9, P11 and P13 are quashed. Respondents are free to bring the property again for auction, if the petitioner does not pay the bid amount. Petitioner will not alienate the property unless he discharge the amount due to the respondents or the debt is adjusted on any other account. Original Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.