JUDGMENT : S. MANIKUMAR, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.02.2009 of the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) 3826/2009, whereby the writ petition was dismissed affirming the order passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram at Ext.P7 proceedings dated 28.11.2008, who in turn confirmed the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki setting aside the sale of the property belonging to one R. Sankarankutty Pillai S/o Raghavan Pillai, Kanavarayil, Elappally P.O. Idukki District ad-measuring 5.49 acres comprising in Survey Nos. 724/1/24 and 724/1/2 of Elappally Village, Thodupuzha Taluk as per the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 (‘the Act 1968’ for brevity) on the basis of the requisition made by State Bank of Travancore. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant participated in the auction conducted by the revenue authorities of Idukki District as per the provisions of the Act, 1968 for the properties specified above. Apparently, the bid offered by the appellant was the highest in the auction held on 08.10.1992 and thus, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1968, 25% of the bid amount was deposited and the balance amount was paid on 04.01.1992. 3. The case projected by the appellant is that, as provided under Section 54 of the Act, 1968, the District Collector or his delegate ie the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, ought to have confirmed the sale within 30 days from the date of auction, in the absence of any application to set aside the sale by any interested persons. 4. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant was that the inadequacy of the price is not a ground to set aside the sale under Section 54 of the Act, 1968. Fact remains, even according to the appellant, despite numerous requests, the Revenue Divisional Officer did not take any action to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant. However, during 1997, the auction held on 08.10.1992 was cancelled, which according to the appellant, was without any intimation to the appellant. While so, when the property was put for re-auction, the appellant filed O.P. No. 3837 of 2000 before this Court and the re-auction was stayed. However, during 1997, the auction held on 08.10.1992 was cancelled, which according to the appellant, was without any intimation to the appellant. While so, when the property was put for re-auction, the appellant filed O.P. No. 3837 of 2000 before this Court and the re-auction was stayed. Anyhow, by Ext.P3 judgment dated 20.02.2006, the writ petition was disposed of directing the third respondent i.e. the District Collector, Idukki, to take a decision on the representation submitted by the appellant. According to the appellant, thereupon, the District Collector, Idukki has passed Ext.P4 order dated 15.01.2008 holding that the appeal is to be preferred before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, as the sale was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer on the direction of the District Collector. However, according to the appellant, the District Collector in Ext.P4 order has stated that as per file No. B3-1185/94 of R.D.O. Idukki, confirmation has been given to another auction conducted in the same area in respect of another landed property which was similar in nature and value and therefore, there is a case for the appellant. The appellant, accordingly, has filed Ext.P6 appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who however, dismissed the same by Ext.P7 order, after providing an opportunity of hearing and participation to the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petition was filed. 5. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the contentions advanced by the appellant, has found that evidently 5.5 acres of agricultural land has been sold to the appellant in the year 1992 for a meagre amount of Rs. 7,000/- after observing that, the finding in Ext.P7 order is that the value of the land at the time of consideration of the appeal by the Commissioner of Land Revenue was Rs. 9,200/- per Are. It was further found that a reading of Ext.P7 also would reveal that the revisional authority has found that the defaulter is a farmer who has taken a relatively small sum of money as loan and the value of the property is not proportionate. 9,200/- per Are. It was further found that a reading of Ext.P7 also would reveal that the revisional authority has found that the defaulter is a farmer who has taken a relatively small sum of money as loan and the value of the property is not proportionate. It was also held that even if the contention of the appellant was that the appellant was to return the land to the defaulter, there is nothing wrong for the reason that poor farmer will otherwise be loosing the land for not paying a small sum of money availed by him and therefore, there was nothing erroneous in the conclusions arrived at by the Commissioner of Land Revenue in Ext.P7 order. It was also found by the learned single Judge that, even assuming that for a similar property, only a lesser amount was secured as sale price evident from Ext.P5 order, the confirmation of the sale of the said property was done by the Revenue Divisional Officer but, in the case at hand, the sale was not set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer. 6. The predominant contention advanced by the appellant in this writ appeal also is that the inadequacy of price is not a ground on which the sale can be set aside by the District Collector or his delegate under Section 54 of the Act, 1968 and further that the power of the District Collector to set aside the sale as provided in the proviso to Section 54 of the Act can only be on one of the grounds mentioned in Sections 52 and 53 of Act, 1968. It is also pointed out that the appellant has paid 25% of the bid amount on the date of the sale i.e. on 08.10.1992 and the balance 75% of the bid amount on 04.11.1992 i.e. within the period permitted under law and therefore, the revenue authorities were duty bound to confirm the sale in favour of the appellant, if no application was filed to set aside the sale under Sections 52 or 53 of the Act, 1968. It is also submitted that, the findings rendered by the Commissioner of Land Revenue that the price that fetched for the property was only Rs. It is also submitted that, the findings rendered by the Commissioner of Land Revenue that the price that fetched for the property was only Rs. 12.75 per cent and therefore, there was no requirement for interference with the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, cannot be sustained, since it is not a ground for setting aside the sale in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Surin George Ipe and the learned counsel appeared for the additional respondents. 8. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not made the property owner a party in the writ petition. Having realised that he has sold the property to other persons, I.A. No. 636 of 2014 was filed seeking for impleadment of, the original property owner as well as the subsequent purchasers. Though notice was ordered to the additional respondents sought to be added, as early as on 17.07.2014, service could not be completed on respondents 7 and 8. Being so, the appellant was directed to take paper publication in a vernacular daily having circulation in Idukki District and to take steps within two weeks. 9. True, draft paper publication was received on 06.02.2017 but no further steps were taken by the appellant. While so, the owner of the property has filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 to get himself impleaded, and it was accordingly as per order dated 08.07.2020, he was impleaded as additional 7th respondent. Anyhow, we do not think that the presence of subsequent purchasers is so vital to decide the question raised by the appellant, especially at this belated stage, and therefore we proceed to hear the appeal on merits. 10. The sole question that emerges for consideration is whether any interference is warranted to the judgment of the learned single Judge. The learned counsel for the appellant addressed the arguments in accordance with the contentions discussed above. 11. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the writ appeal has submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Commissioner of Land Revenue was in order and it was accordingly that the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the same. 11. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the counter affidavit filed in the writ appeal has submitted that the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Commissioner of Land Revenue was in order and it was accordingly that the learned single Judge refused to interfere with the same. It is pointed out that Ext.P7 order was passed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing and participation to the appellant. It is inter-alia stated that, the District Collector proceeded against the property of the additional 7th respondent as per the requisition received on 16.10.1987 from the Branch Manager, SBT, Moolamattom. Out of the total arrears due, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been reduced under ADR Scheme as per file No. RM-11/515 dated 15.05.1992 of SBT, Moolamattom. Since the defaulter did not remit the balance arrears, the property in question was proceeded with. It is admitted that the first appellant has remitted 25% of the amount on 08.10.1992 and the balance amount on 04.11.1992 on bidding the property admeasuring 5.49 acres. 12. Anyhow, when the matter was placed before the Revenue Divisional Officer for confirmation as per order dated 07.08.1997, the auction sale conducted on 08.10.1992 was set aside and was directed to conduct resale. Even though two intimation letters were sent to the appellant requesting to receive the bid amount already deposited by her, both the letters were returned with the remarks ‘addressee not known’ and therefore, the bid amount was deposited in the RD account and the property was put for re-auction on 05.02.2000. It was in the meantime the appellant filed O.P. No. 3837 of 2000 before this Court and secured an order of stay on 04.02.2000. It is also pointed out that the Revenue Divisional Officer has set aside the sale, since the price fetched was inadequate. Anyhow, it is stated that the Commissioner of Land Revenue, after verifying and elaborately considering the issues and the legal and other questions raised by the appellant, has arrived at a clear finding that the bid amount of Rs. 12.75 percent was too low, and further that the auction was not confirmed in favour of the appellant and therefore, there is no legal right to the appellant to challenge the order of cancellation. 12.75 percent was too low, and further that the auction was not confirmed in favour of the appellant and therefore, there is no legal right to the appellant to challenge the order of cancellation. It is also pointed out that the inadequacy of price was one of the relevant criteria to be taken note of by the revenue authorities before confirming the sale. 13. It is better that, before appreciating the facts and circumstances involved, the relevant provisions of the Act, 1968 are discussed. Section 49 of the Act, 1968 deals with procedure for sale of immovable property and sub-section (1) stipulates that the sale shall be by public auction to the highest bidder and 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. It is an admitted fact that the sale was conducted and the appellant has deposited 25% of the amount on the date of sale and the balance amount within 30 days as is provided under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of Act, 1968. 14. Section 52 deals with application to set aside the sale of immovable property on deposit by any interested person of the immovable property sold under the Act. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that no such application was filed. However, since the confirmation of the sale was required under Section 54 of the act 1968 on the expiration of 30 days from the date of sale, if no application to set aside the sale is preferred under Section 52 after depositing the amounts due, or no application was filed to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity and mistake under section 53, the revenue authority shall make an order confirming the sale. Section 54 is relevant to the context, which reads thus: “54. Section 54 is relevant to the context, which reads thus: “54. Order confirming or setting aside sale - On the expiration of thirty days from the date of the sale, if no application to have the sale set aside is made under section 52 or section 53 or if any such application has been made and rejected, the Collector shall make an order confirming the sale: Provided that if the Collector has reason to think that the sale ought to be set aside 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.” 15. It is an admitted fact that there was no application either under Section 52 or under Section 53 of the Act, 1968 by any interested persons. However, by virtue of the proviso to Section 54 of the Act, 1968, if the Collector has reason to think that the sale ought to be set aside notwithstanding that no such application has been made or on grounds other than those alleged in any application which has been made and rejected, the Collector is vested with ample powers after recording in writing the reasons, to set aside the sale. So much so, on a deeper analysis of Sections 52 and 53 of the act it is unequivocal that there is no statutory requirement for providing any hearing to a person whose bid was not confirmed, and further independent of the applications under the said provisions, the authority is vested with powers under section 54 of the act 1968 to set aside any sale. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the setting aside of the sale by the Revenue Divisional Officer was by virtue of the powers conferred on him under Section 54 of the Act, 1968, since the authority was satisfied that the price fetched by the property in the auction was inadequate, which thus, also means irrespective of any kind of material irregularity or mistake, the revenue authority was vested with powers to record his reasons and set aside the sale by virtue of the proviso to Section 54 of the Act, 1968, which is a factual finding. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the authority was justified in doing so having realised that the sale if confirmed would seriously prejudice a farmer, also leading to any irreparable injury and loses. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, it was found by the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as the Commissioner of Land Revenue that the price of the property was inadequate and the property had fetched only Rs. 12.75 per cent and therefore, the sale was not properly conducted. It is also curious to note that it was for a paltry sum that was due from the 7th respondent, the entire extent of 5.49 acres was put to auction which was also taken into account by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. It is also an admitted fact that even though the appellant has deposited the amount, the sale was not confirmed in favour of the appellant. The case projected by the revenue authorities in its counter affidavit is that even though two letters were addressed to the appellant while the sale was set aside, it was returned un-served marking that the addressee not known. It is the case of the official respondents that the communications were sent in the address given by the appellant and since the appellant did not turn up for receiving the amount already deposited, the amount was deposited in a suspense account since there was no other alternative for the revenue authorities. That apart, the Commissioner of Land Revenue has elaborately considered the point raised by the appellant taking into account the factual circumstances and has arrived at a finding that the reasons assigned by the Revenue Divisional Officer to set aside the sale was in accordance with law. Anyhow, the said decision was taken by the Commissioner of Land Revenue taking into account the contentions put forth by the appellant and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The learned single Judge, while considering the writ petition, has taken note of the circumstances under which the Revenue Divisional Officer has set aside the sale which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue and was also of the opinion that the price that was fetched in revenue sale was too meager. The learned single Judge, while considering the writ petition, has taken note of the circumstances under which the Revenue Divisional Officer has set aside the sale which was confirmed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue and was also of the opinion that the price that was fetched in revenue sale was too meager. Therefore, we do not think that the appellant could establish any case of illegality or arbitrariness justifying the learned single Judge to interfere with the order impugned. On a perusal of the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, we are also satisfied that the order was passed adhering to the prescriptions of law and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment in Tahsildar, Devikulam Idukki District vs. Rajan Thomas Kallumgal House, Pulimthanam P.O. Pothanicadu, Kothamangalam, (2020) 0 Supreme (Ker) 330 to be considered by us to buttress his contentions. However, the facts of the case in Rajan Thomas (supra) were entirely different to have any application to the issues involved in the case at hand. Anyhow, this Court has clearly held in the said judgment that if an applicant, who seeks cancellation of auction of immovable property, has sustained serious loss in the auction proceedings due to defects, the District Collector can cancel the auction and further that even if any application for cancellation of the auction was not received, auction can be cancelled for sufficient reasons as provided under Section 54 of Act, 1968. Therefore, the proposition of law laid down thereunder would not come to the rescue of the appellant. 18. Taking into account all these factual and legal circumstances, we are of the definite opinion that the appellant has not made out any case for interference in the judgment of the learned single Judge, in an intra-court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, since we do not find any legal infirmity in the findings rendered by the learned single Judge. 19. Needless to say, the writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.