Judgment : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. This Appeal is filed by the applicant who is the auction purchaser in a sale conducted by the Official Liquidator, seeking extension of time for deposit of the balance sale amount of Rs.17,52,37,511/-, levy of stamp duty and registration fee at the fair value of Rs.9,83,73,000/-. In short the appellant bid for the property which was notified for sale in liquidation proceedings by the official liquidator for a sum of of Rs.17,52,37,511/-. The official liquidator filed a report seeking orders of confirmation of the auction sale. Then the appellant filed Co.Appln.No.86/2013 seeking extension of time for payment. The further objection raised was that the State of Kerala may be directed to levy stamp duty and registration fee only on Rs.9,83,73,000/-. According to the appellant, the fair value in respect of the property has been fixed by the State of Kerala in terms of Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act at Rs.1,21,000/-per cent. According to him, based on the same, the fair value of the entire property was fixed at Rs.9,83,73,000/- and therefore he need pay stamp duty on the basis of amount of Rs.9,83,73,000/- and not Rs.17,52,37,511/- . 2. Learned Company Judge granted time by two months. As regards the direction to the State of Kerala for levying the stamp duty at the reduced rate on the basis of the fair value fixed, it did not find favour with the learned Company Judge. 3. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Official Liquidator Sri.K.Moni. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to I.A No.2343/2013. Therein, the appellant has, inter alia, produced Annexure F which purports to be a Survey plan of Sy.No.125/4 in Block No.25 of Mundakkal Village, Kollam Taluk. He would point out that the same would show that there is an extent of land which actually falls within the property which purports to be purchased by the appellant which is vested with the Government. He would point out that the part of the land is a puramboke thodu. Therefore he has in the said I.A sought a direction to the Official Liquidator to submit a report on the steps taken to rectify the anomalies disclosed by Annexue F plan. 5. He would point out that the part of the land is a puramboke thodu. Therefore he has in the said I.A sought a direction to the Official Liquidator to submit a report on the steps taken to rectify the anomalies disclosed by Annexue F plan. 5. As far as the complaint raised in the appeal as such, the learned counsel is not able to make out a case for our interference. More over, he would also submit that in view of the anomalies which he found out, he is not in a position to proceed with the sale unless the anomalies are rectified. 6. Learned counsel for the first respondent points out that under the terms of the auction, the principle of caveat emptor applies and all the bidders were made aware of the position. 7. In so far as the appellant has not been in a position to make out a case for our interference with the order passed by the learned Company Judge, the appeal is only to be dismissed. We do so. Accordingly, the appeal will stand dismissed. In regard to I.A No.2343/2013, we record the submission of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent will move the learned Company Judge for forfeiture of the EMD. We close I.A No.2343/2013 and leave open the contentions of the appellant before the Company Judge.