IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34269 of 2010(G)
1. SRUTHI,D/O.VISWANATHAN,KODAIKATTIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR.
... Respondent
2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,THRISSUR.
3. THE TAHSILDAR(R.R),THRISSUR.
4. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
5. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :24/11/2010
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J
---------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an auction purchaser of certain
immovable properties sold by the 3rd respondent, pursuant
to proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery
Act. The sale in question was conducted on 9.4.2007 and
the property was bid in auction by the petitioner for a sum
of Rs.15,20,000/-. The petitioner had remitted 15% of the
bid amount on the date of sale itself and the balance amount
was paid on 7.5.2007. Grievance of the petitioner is that
much after remittance of the entire amount, the 1st
respondent had cancelled the sale by virtue of Ext.P1 order,
on 16.8.2010.
2. It is evident that cancellation of the sale was
ordered on the basis of a report submitted by the Tahsildar,
pointing out certain irregularities and also pointing out that
the auction bidder is the nearest kith and kin of the
defaulter. Further reason stated is that the amount at
W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G 2
which the auction was conducted is not justifiable when
compared with value of the property. However, aggrieved
by Ext.P1 order the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 revision
petition, as contemplated under Section 83(1) of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, before the 4th respondent.
According to the petitioner the revision petition is pending
consideration and disposal before the 4th respondent. It is
alleged that without considering pendency of the revision,
the 3rd respondent had now initiated further steps for sale
and the property in question is proclaimed for re-auction as
evidenced from Ext.P3 notice. Hence the petitioner is
seeking direction to the 4th respondent to have an early
disposal of the revision petition and till then to keep further
steps for re-sale in abeyance.
3. Heard, learned Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondents. On the basis of instructions it is
submitted that the sale proclaimed as per Ext.P3 was not
taken place, and the 3rd respondent had adjourned the sale
to 18.12.2010.
4. Considering the fact that the petitioner had
W.P(C) No.34269 of 2010-G 3
remitted the entire sale amount as early as in the year 2007
and also considering the fact that the sale was set aside
only in the year 2010, I am of the view that it is only just
and proper to restrain further actions of the 3rd respondent
till the statutory revision is considered and disposed of by
the 4th respondent.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of
directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P2 revision petition, after affording an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, as
any rate within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
6. Till such time orders are passed by the 4th
respondent as directed, all further proceedings with respect
to sale of the property in question shall be kept in abeyance.
7. The petitioner will produce a copy of this
judgment before the 4th respondent for proper compliance.
Sd/-
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
JUDGE
//True Copy//
ab P.A to Judge