Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The challenge in this Original Petition is against Ext. P3. A property consisting of 0.40 acres of land in R.S. No. 38/5 of Morazha Amsom, Kanool Desom was put to revenue sale to recover certain arrears due from Smt. T.V. Paru Amma, wife of Govindan, Pattuvam Village. That was bid by one Sri. C.K. Nambiar. But, he had defaulted in paying the bid amount. This necessitated the resale of the property in terms of the Revenue Recovery Act. In the resale, the petitioner was the highest bidder. It is stated that the petitioner was put in possession of the property as well. Later the R D .0. passed Ext. P3, setting aside the resale in favour of the petitioner. The manifest ground on which Ext. P3 has been issued is that the first auction purchaser, namely, C.K. Nambiar was not given a notice regarding the resale. It is also discernible from Ext. P3, another important ground that the price fetched in the resale was far lower than that quoted by Sri. Nambiar and therefore, adequate value had riot been fetched in the reauction. It is based on these reasons, the reauction, in which the petitioner bid had been set aside and fresh steps were directed in Ext. P3. 2. Assailing Ext. P3, it is contended by the petitioner that a sale cannot be set aside as done in Ext. P3 without notice to the person, whose bid was accepted. It is also contended that the sale cannot be said to be liable to be set aside on the ground that the earlier defaulted purchaser had not been given notice. A defaulter cannot complain of the violation of principles of natural justice, if at all that is available. Moreover, here in the case of reauction, there arise no question of rendering an opportunity to a defaulter and consequently, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice as found in Ext. P3. It is also contended that merely because there was a loss of Rs. 70,000/-, taking into account the bid amount in the two successive auctions, the sale cannot be set aside as done in Ext. P3. That is not the relevant criteria for setting aside the sale. P3. It is also contended that merely because there was a loss of Rs. 70,000/-, taking into account the bid amount in the two successive auctions, the sale cannot be set aside as done in Ext. P3. That is not the relevant criteria for setting aside the sale. It is also the contention of the petitioner that S.49(5) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, relied on by the first respondent to pass Ext. P3, does not enable him to pass an order like that. 3. The petitioner is well footed in submitting that there is violation of principles of natural justice so far as the petitioner is concerned, when the sale in his favour was set aside in Ext. P3. Before setting aside a sale in favour of one person, it is incumbent on the officer who sets the sale aside to hear that party concerned because that affects him with adverse consequences as he had already paid the amount. Necessarily, Ext. P3 is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. 4. The petitioner is also well footed in contending that the sale in his favour cannot be set aside on the ground that a notice for reauction was not rendered to the defaulted purchaser in the first auction. A defaulter is not entitled to notice. Moreover, the notice of reauction itself amounts a notice to everyone including a defaulted purchaser. Therefore, Ext. P3, to the extent it sets aside the sale in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the first auction purchaser who defaulted in paying the amount was not given notice, is bad. 5. S.49 deals with procedure for sale of immovable property. Sub-s.(5) thereof does not have much relevance with regard to the setting aside of sale. On the other hand, the Sub Divisional Officer, who has been empowered as the Collector in terms of notification under S.2(c), can, exercising the powers vested in him as per the proviso to S.54, certainly on appropriate grounds, set aside the sale, even if there is no application for setting aside the sale. On the other hand, the Sub Divisional Officer, who has been empowered as the Collector in terms of notification under S.2(c), can, exercising the powers vested in him as per the proviso to S.54, certainly on appropriate grounds, set aside the sale, even if there is no application for setting aside the sale. It is stated in the said proviso that, "If the Collector has reason to think that the sale ought to be setaside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, he may, after recording his reasons in writing, set aside the sale". It is discernible as already mentioned above, from Ext. P3 that as against the price of Rs. 1,20,250/- fetched in the first sale, the price in the resale was only Rs. 50,250/- with a huge difference of Rs. 70,000/-. Thus, whether appropriate value has been obtained for the property subjected to sale is a relevant consideration for the Collector in terms of the proviso to S.54 to set aside the sale. Thus, even though a wrong section, merely, S.49(5), is quoted in paragraph 2 of Ext. P3, the conclusions are related to the power vested with the Collector, including the R.D.O., in terms of the proviso to S.54. Therefore, the Collector, including the R.D.O., has the power to set aside the sale on appropriate grounds. Therefore, mere inclusion of S.49(5) will not vitiate exercise of power by the Collector as he has sufficient power under the proviso to S.54 even without an application to set aside. 6. Even if the Collector has such a power under the said proviso, necessarily, he is bound to exercise that power after affording reasonable opportunity to the persons who are likely to be affected by that order. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard before Ext. P3 was passed. Consequently, Ext. P3 is liable to be set aside. The R.D.O. shall pass fresh orders after rendering an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Until then, the status quo as on today regarding the property shall be maintained. The Original Petition is disposed of as above.