JUDGMENT : HARISANKAR V. MENON, J. 1. The petitioner participated in an auction conducted under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 (the ‘RR Act’ for short), for realisation of some tax arrears payable by one Sri.Muhammad Abdul Rahiman, who was an assessee under the provisions of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (the ‘KVAT Act’ for short). The petitioner was the successful bidder, and an amount of Rs.1,57,800/- was paid by the petitioner on 07.03.2013 towards 15% of the total bid amount. The balance Rs.8,94,200/- was paid on 22.03.2013. Put together, an amount of Rs.10,52,000/- was admittedly paid by the petitioner. On the petitioner making the payments as above, Ext.P3 gazette publication was issued with reference to the provisions of Section 57 of the ‘RR Act’ as per which, the petitioner herein is declared to have succeeded to the rights of Sri. Muhammad Abdul Rahiman referred to above. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner was, however, not given possession pursuant to Ext.P3. In such circumstances, the petitioner preferred W.P. (C) No. 29577 of 2018 before this Court for appropriate reliefs. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court disposed of the above writ petition, noticing that, Sri. Muhammad Abdul Rahiman, the assessee, had taken up the assessments pursuant to which revenue recovery proceedings were taken, in appeals under the statute, and ultimately by the judgment dated 19.03.2019, in O.T. (Rev) Nos. 56 and 58 of 2018, the assessments were set aside. This Court also noticed that, with respect to another year (2007-08), the assessment has been already set aside by the Appellate Tribunal under the statute. In such circumstances, this Court noticed that the Authorities under the RR Act is to obtain an opinion as to the further proceedings pursuant to the auction sale conducted as above from the Commercial Taxes Authorities. This Court further found as under: “It is obligatory on the part of the Revenue Recovery authorities either to issue a ‘Sale Certificate’ and to effect delivery of the possession of the property or to cancel the auction sale and to make refund of the amounts due to the petitioner, as appropriate in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable in the case. However, any delay in this regard will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner. However, any delay in this regard will cause severe prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the opinion that interest of justice can be achieved by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take immediate necessary steps in the matter. Hence, the above writ petition is hereby disposed of by directing the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps in the matter as mentioned above, without any further delay. At any rate, necessary steps in this regard shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the defaulter.” This Court thus noticed that the petitioner was entitled to get the sale certificate or in the alternative, get refund of the amounts paid as above. 2. Pursuant to the above, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation at Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, in turn, issued Ext.P6 order dated 17.08.2019, noticing that the assessments have been set aside at the instance of the assessee and hence setting aside the sale effected in favour of the petitioner under Section 54 of the RR Act. The gazette notification at Ext.P3 is also sought to be withdrawn by issuing a fresh gazette notification in that regard. The petitioner was found to be entitled for the refund of the entire amount paid by her, kept as revenue deposit in the meantime. 3. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition, pointing out that Ext.P6 only speaks about refund of the principal amount of Rs.10,52,000/- paid by the petitioner and the proceedings is silent as regards the eligibility for interest on the refund amount as above. 4. I have heard Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.B. Sony, learned Government Pleader. 5. Sri. Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, points out with reference to the provisions of the RR Act that, the petitioner has participated in the auction, paid the full amounts pursuant to the successful bid, obtained Ext.P3 gazette notification under Section 57 and hence, if the sale is subsequently cancelled, the petitioner is also entitled to be compensated with interest, apart from the principal amount paid by her. Per contra, Smt. K.B. Sony, the learned Government Pleader, relies on the provisions under Section 55 of the RR Act and contends that the statute does not visualise the payment of interest and only the refund of the purchase money is visualised under Section 55. She also relies on the judgment of this Court in Vijayakumar v. District Collector, 2013 (2) KLT 458 , in that regard. 6. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records. 7. The facts are not in dispute. Sri. Muhammad Abdul Rahiman (assessee under the statute) was a defaulter, and hence revenue recovery proceedings were initiated for realisation of tax arrears. The defaulter’s properties were placed for sale. The petitioner participated in the auction, and she was the successful bidder. An amount of Rs.10,52,000/- is paid by the petitioner. However, it so happened that the defaulter had challenged the assessments pursuant to which revenue recovery proceedings were taken, before the statutory authorities. As regards one assessment year, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the assessment. As regards the other two years, this Court in O.T. (Rev.) Nos.56 and 58 of 2018, has similarly set aside the assessment. It is in the above circumstances that the petitioner’s earlier attempt to get possession of the properties pursuant to Ext.P3 was considered and disposed of in Ext.P4 judgment, by this Court. This Court, noticing the subsequent developments as above, directed the Revenue Authorities to either issue the sale certificate or to refund the amounts paid by the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 is issued. In Ext.P6, the sale in favour of the petitioner is cancelled under Section 54 of the RR Act, and the amount of Rs.10,52,000/- is ordered to be refunded. 8. Ext.P6 is silent as regards the interest claimed by the petitioner. Smt. K.B. Sony, is justified in submitting that, under Section 55 of the RR Act, only refund of the amount paid is visualised and no interest is prescribed. However, the provisions of Section 55 comes into operation only in a situation where the sale is set aside. However, in the case at hand, the auction sale carried out has been confirmed, and under the provisions of Section 56, the petitioner’s name is registered in the prescribed manner and the sale certificate is also issued. This is followed with Section 57 publication in the gazette, as evidenced by Ext.P3. However, in the case at hand, the auction sale carried out has been confirmed, and under the provisions of Section 56, the petitioner’s name is registered in the prescribed manner and the sale certificate is also issued. This is followed with Section 57 publication in the gazette, as evidenced by Ext.P3. Therefore, the judgment relied on by Smt. K.B. Sony would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. Further, in the judgment cited by Smt. K.B. Sony also, this Court had refused to award interest on equitable considerations, on account of differentiating facts pointed out in paragraph 23 of the judgment. 10. However, in the case at hand, it is to be noticed that the petitioner, a third party, had participated in a public auction conducted under the provisions of the RR Act in the year 2013. The entire consideration was paid as early as on 22.03.2013. Ext.P3 issued in 2015. The petitioner was entitled to get delivery of possession under Section 58 of the RR Act then and there. However, it is only because the possession was not handed over under Section 58, the petitioner came before this Court and Ext.P4 judgment was issued, noticing the subsequent developments, including the setting aside of the assessments, on 19.03.2019. It is only subsequent to Ext.P4, Ext.P6 is issued, setting aside the sale and refunding Rs.10,52,000/- to the petitioner. In other words, an amount of Rs.10,52,000/- was kept in revenue deposit for almost six years. In such circumstances, on equitable considerations, the petitioner is entitled for interest when the above amount of Rs.10,52,000/- is being refunded pursuant to the orders at Ext.P6. 11. Smt. K.B. Sony also points out that the defaulter had filed a series of litigations before various Authorities and he might also have obtained stay orders with regard to the disputed demands. However, the above submission cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that, if there were such litigations filed and orders of stay obtained by the defaulter, the provisions of the RR Act would not have been continued against him, leading to the sale in favour of the petitioner. 12. The Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others v. G.C. Roy, 1992 (1) SCC 508 , has laid down the following principles as regards the grant of interest: “43. 12. The Apex Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and Others v. G.C. Roy, 1992 (1) SCC 508 , has laid down the following principles as regards the grant of interest: “43. The question still remains whether arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite, and if so on what principle. We must reiterate that we are dealing with the situation where the agreement does not provide for grant of such interest nor does it prohibit such grant. In other words, we are dealing with a case where the agreement is silent as to award of interest. On a conspectus of aforementioned decisions, the following principles emerge: (i) A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This basic consideration is as valid for the period the dispute is pending pe before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference. This is the principle of Section 34, Civil Procedure Code and there is no reason or principle to hold otherwise in the case of arbitrator.” The above principle would apply to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand also. 13. In such circumstances, I allow this writ petition by holding that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 6% from the date of deposit to the date of payment, which shall be disbursed to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.