JUDGMENT : An extent of land, ad-measuring 8 cents, comprised in Sy.No.138/2A in Pullipadam Village in Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District belonging to the fourth respondent was brought to sale in revenue recovery proceedings initiated at the instance of the Canara Bank. Petitioner being the successful bidder, the sale was confirmed in his name and possession certificate issued. After protracted litigation at the instance of the fourth respondent, the Government issued Ext.P10 order setting aside the sale and directing return of the purchase value remitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P10 and the consequential directions. 2. The short facts, leading up to the issuance of Ext.P10, are as follows: The fourth respondent availed a loan from the Canara Bank by mortgaging his property as security and defaulted in repayment, causing the Bank to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for realisation of Rs.3,72,985/-. Demand notices under Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were served on the fourth respondent on 08.11.2011. Since the notices failed to evoke any positive response, the sale was proceeded with and action taken under Section 49(2) of the Act. The fourth respondent filed O.S.No.200 of 2011 before the Sub Court, Manjeri and obtained a decree, granting him six months from 06.03.2012 to clear the dues. Thereupon, revenue recovery proceedings was deferred till 08.08.2012. Since the fourth respondent failed to remit the amount within the time granted by the civil court, the revenue sale was fixed for 20.11.2012. On finding that the entire extent of land was not required for clearing the dues, a lesser extent of 8 cents was notified for sale on 15.01.2013. The upset price was fixed at Rs.8 lakhs, at the rate of Rs.50,000/-per cent. Petitioner’s offer of Rs.8,59,000/- being the highest, the bid was confirmed in his name. The petitioner remitted an amount of Rs.1,28,850/- on the same day, being 15% of the bid amount. In spite of service of notice as contemplated under Section 49, requiring the fourth respondent to clear the dues within 30 days of the sale, he failed to remit the amount and hence, the petitioner deposited the balance 85% of the purchase price, i.e., Rs.7,30,150/-and by Ext.P3 order dated 25.10.2014, sale was confirmed in his name. In spite of service of notice as contemplated under Section 49, requiring the fourth respondent to clear the dues within 30 days of the sale, he failed to remit the amount and hence, the petitioner deposited the balance 85% of the purchase price, i.e., Rs.7,30,150/-and by Ext.P3 order dated 25.10.2014, sale was confirmed in his name. Thereafter, absolute possession of the land was given to the petitioner on 10.11.2014 and his name published as title holder of the property in the Gazette dated 16.12.2014. 3. In the meanwhile, the fourth respondent approached the Government directly and obtained Ext.P6 order dated 14.02.2013 staying the revenue recovery proceedings, subject to the fourth respondent paying 10% of the arrear amount before 14.03.2013 and the balance in 40 equal monthly instalments. The fourth respondent did not comply with the condition and instead, chose to challenge the sale by filing revision before the third respondent under Section 83(1) of the Act. Ext.P7 interim order of stay was issued in the revision on 07.03.2013. Later, the revision petition itself was dismissed by order dated 02.08.2014. Challenging the dismissal, the fourth respondent preferred further revision before the Government under Section 83(2) of the Act. The Government allowed that revision vide Ext.P8 order dated 05.06.2015 and granted three months time to the fourth respondent to pay off the entire arrears. Petitioner challenged Ext.P8 before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20955 of 2015 and by Ext.P9 judgment dated 09.03.2016, Ext.P8 order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Government for fresh consideration. Thereupon, the Government, by Ext.P10 order, once again set aside the sale. 4. Heard Sri. P. Samsudin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. K.S. Madhusoodanan, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent and Smt.Deepa Narayanan, learned Government Pleader. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed Ext.P10, contending that the factual findings therein are wrong and the legal reasoning, flawed. It is submitted that the only reason stated in EXt.P10 for setting aside the sale is of the Sub Collector having confirmed the sale on 27.10.2014, while the revision petition filed by the fourth respondent was pending before the Government. The first revision filed before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was dismissed on 02.08.2014 and the sale having been confirmed thereafter on 27.10.2014, the same cannot be interfered with, merely for reason of the fourth respondent having filed further revision before the Government on 28.08.2014, is the contention. The first revision filed before the Commissioner of Land Revenue was dismissed on 02.08.2014 and the sale having been confirmed thereafter on 27.10.2014, the same cannot be interfered with, merely for reason of the fourth respondent having filed further revision before the Government on 28.08.2014, is the contention. According to the learned Counsel, mere filing of revision before the Government would not result in automatic stay of the proceedings under challenge. 6. Learned Counsel relied on the following finding in Ext.P9 judgment; “if as a matter of fact, the stay order passed in favour of the fourth respondent was not in force at the time when the sale was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, then the said stay order could not have been the basis of Ext.P6 order, which set aside the confirmation of the sale in favour of the petitioner”, to contend that, the aforementioned finding in Ext.P9 would amount to res judicata and the Government could not have set aside the sale on the very same ground. It is argued that, the fourth respondent had failed to avail the opportunities provided under the Act and had chosen to approach the Government, but having failed to comply even with the directions in the orders passed in his favour. According to the learned Counsel, the sale could not have been set aside at the instance of such a person. 7. In reply, the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that over and above the reasons stated in Ext.P10, there are other reasons, which though canvassed, were not dealt with in Ext.P10. It is contended that Ext.P5 receipt under which the Village Officer is alleged to have taken over possession of the property is a concocted document. The learned Counsel pointed out that, even though in Ext.P5 the property is stated to have been taken over in the presence of witnesses, Ext.P5 does not contain the signatures of the so called witnesses. It is contended that, within 30 days of sale, the fourth respondent had obtained a stay against recovery proceedings, as revealed by Ext.P6. It is alleged that though Ext.P6 was produced before the first respondent, the order was not accepted on the premise that the 30 days period stipulated under Section 52 of the Act had expired. The revision under Section 83(1) was preferred on 08.02.2013 and interim stay granted on 07.03.2013. It is alleged that though Ext.P6 was produced before the first respondent, the order was not accepted on the premise that the 30 days period stipulated under Section 52 of the Act had expired. The revision under Section 83(1) was preferred on 08.02.2013 and interim stay granted on 07.03.2013. The learned Counsel points out that, though the revision was dismissed by Ext.R4(a) order dated 02.08.2014, the contention of the fourth respondent that in spite of production of Ext.P6, the first respondent had refused to accept the order, is dealt with in Ext.R4(a). The further revision under Section 83(2) was filed on 28.08.2014 and the sale was confirmed on 27.10.2014. It is submitted that the fourth respondent had challenged the revenue recovery proceedings in W.P(C).No.30995 of 2014 and this Court had directed the revision to be considered within three months and to maintain status quo till finalisation of the proceedings. That, pursuant to Ext.P10 order, the first respondent had issued Ext.R4(c) notice calling upon the fourth respondent to remit an amount of Rs.8,32,012/- towards the purchase price remitted by the petitioner along with interest from 01.04.2011 to 30.09.2016, collection charges and notice charges, and the amount was remitted under Ext. R4(d) receipt. Later, by Ext.R4(f) order, 5% of the purchase value collected from the fourth respondent was directed to be returned. It is contended that the fourth respondent was deprived of his property based on the illegal sale, which has been rightly set aside by the Government. Hence, no interference is warranted against Ext.P10 in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. In order to consider the challenge against Ext.P10, it is essential to have an overview of the scheme for sale of immovable property under the Act. 9. The procedure for sale of immovable property is provided in Section 49 of the Act. Section 51 contemplates an opportunity for the defaulter to tender the full amount of the arrears of public revenue due on land with interest thereon and cost of process and to make an application in writing to the officer conducting the sale, before the commencement of the sale. If such an application is made and the amount deposited, the sale shall be stayed. If such an application is made and the amount deposited, the sale shall be stayed. Under Section 52, a further opportunity is provided to the defaulter to deposit a sum equal to 5% of the purchase value and the sum equal to the arrears of public revenue due on land for which the immovable property was sold together with interest thereon and cost of process within 30 days of the sale and to make an application to the Collector for setting aside the sale. If such deposit and the application are made within 30 days, the Collector shall pass an order setting aside the sale and return to the purchaser, the purchase money so far as it has been deposited together with the 5% deposited by the applicant. Section 53 clothes the Collector with the power to set aside the sale and to direct a fresh sale, if at any time within 30 days from the date of sale of the property, an application is made to the Collector to set aside the sale on the ground of some material irregularity, mistake or fraud in conducting the sale, and if, the Collector, on enquiry, finds the allegation to be true. If no application is made, either under Section 52 or Section 53, within the period of 30 days, or if any such application has been made and rejected, the Collector shall make an order confirming the sale as mandated under Section 54. On such confirmation, the Collector shall register the immovable property sold in the name of the person declared to be the purchaser and shall execute and grant a certificate of sale bearing his seal and signature to such purchaser, as provided under Section 56. The procedure and the manner in which the name and title of such purchaser is to be published, and the immovable property delivered to him, is prescribed under Sections 57 and 58. Section 83 confers the Commissioner of Land Revenue with the power to call for any proceeding which has been taken by the Collector or the authorised officer under the Act and to make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of the Act, to pass such orders as he thinks fit. Section 83 confers the Commissioner of Land Revenue with the power to call for any proceeding which has been taken by the Collector or the authorised officer under the Act and to make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of the Act, to pass such orders as he thinks fit. Section 83 (2) empowers the Government to call for the record of any proceeding taken by the Commissioner for Land Revenue under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 and to make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and to pass such orders as the Government deems fit. The provisos to Section 83(1) and 83(2) denudes the power of the Commissioner for Land Revenue and the Government to pass an order without previous notice to the party who may be affected by such order. 10. Having analysed the scheme, I go back to the facts of the instant case. The sale having been confirmed in the petitioner's favour on 15.01.2013, the fourth respondent could have averted confirmation of the sale by remitting the amounts stipulated in Section 52 within 30 days of sale. Instead of resorting to such action, the fourth respondent approached the Government and obtained Ext.P6 stay order on 14.02.2013. Under the Act, there is no provision empowering the Government to issue a stay order in the nature of Ext.P6, that too without hearing the affected parties, namely the Bank and the auction purchaser. From a reading of Ext.P6, it is evident that stay was granted on a representation submitted by the fourth respondent. 11. As per Section 71, provisions of the Act can be made applicable to any institution by publishing a notification to that effect in the Gazette. Thereupon, for the purpose of recovery as per the provisions of the Act, the amount due to the notified institution shall be considered as arrears of public revenue due on land, but that does not clothe the Government with the authority to pass orders like Ext.P6. The Government derives its power to consider the legality of a revenue recovery action from Section 83(2) of the Act. The Government derives its power to consider the legality of a revenue recovery action from Section 83(2) of the Act. That power, going by the clear wording of the Section, is only to call for any proceeding taken by the Commissioner for Land Revenue under Section 83 (1) and to make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Government cannot usurp the powers of the original authority or the first revisional authority. Even though there is no challenge against Ext.P6 in this writ petition, the whimsical manner in which the Government issued Ext.P6 compelled me to make the above observations. 12. One factor which weighed with the Government while passing Ext.P10 order is that, in spite of production of a copy of Ext.P6, the first respondent refused to accept the fourth respondent’s offer to remit the amount in instalments. As revealed from Ext.R4(a), the first respondent had countered this allegation by stating that no such offer was made by the fourth respondent and that, by the time Ext.P6 was produced, the petitioner had remitted the entire purchase price and the period of 30 days prescribed under Section 52 had expired. The first respondent having acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the sale cannot be set aside on the specious reasoning that the first respondent was bound to accept the arrear amount in the manner directed in Ext.P6. Moreover, other than the bald statement of the fourth respondent, of having offered to effect payment in terms of Ext.P6, no proof of such offer, or of any such attempt having been made, was produced. 13. The other reason set out in Ext.P10 is that, as on the date of confirmation of sale, revision under Section 83(2) was pending before the Government. Mere pendency of the revision does not have the effect of stultifying the further process in a revenue recovery proceeding. As a matter of fact, the proviso to Section 83(2) stipulates that no order shall be passed in the revision, without giving notice to the party who may be affected by that order. 14. The contention, of Ext.P5 being a fabricated document due to the absence of signature of the witnesses in that document is only to be rejected, since Ext.P5 is only an extract of the original. 14. The contention, of Ext.P5 being a fabricated document due to the absence of signature of the witnesses in that document is only to be rejected, since Ext.P5 is only an extract of the original. Further, no such contention is seen to have been raised before the first and second revisional authorities. 15. Having found the reasons stated in Ext. P10, for setting aside the sale in favour of the petitioner to be unsustainable, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and I do so. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is quashed and the first respondent directed to issue sale certificate to the petitioner with respect to the property covered by Ext.P5. No order as to costs.