IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 26396 of 2009(T)
1. ARAYAKKOOL SHAMSUDDIN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. CHEMBILALI BASHEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :18/09/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.26396 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1 and P4
orders of the 3rd respondent confirming the sale of immovable
property effected under Revenue Recovery proceedings, in
favour of the 4th respondent. Property having an extent of 5
cents comprised in R.S.101 of Kolari Amsom Kaloor Desom in
Thalassery Taluk, belonging to the petitioner was sold in public
auction pursuant to Revenue Recovery steps initiated for
realisation of arrears of Building Tax, to the extent of
Rs.59,400/-. The sale of the property in favour of 4th respondent
was for an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-. According to the petitioner
he was employed in Gulf countries and was not having notice or
knowledge about the sale proceedings, and he came to know
about the recovery steps only after the auction was conducted.
Eventhough he had caused a lawyer notice to the 2nd respondent
Tahsildar demanding not to confirm the sale, expressing his
willingness to pay off the entire arrears, he was informed
through Ext.P3 reply under Section 52(1)(b) of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, for getting the sale set aside. In the
W.P.(C).26396/09 2
meantime the 3rd respondent had confirmed the sale through
Ext.P1 and P4 without notice to the petitioner and without his
knowledge, is the complaint. According to the petitioner he is
ready and willing to pay off the entire arrears and the property
which is sold will fetch a market price of Rs.20 lakhs and
therefore he is seeking direction to cancel the sale on permitting
him to pay off the entire arrears.
2. Having considered contentions of the petitioner, I am
of the opinion that the petitioner has to seek appropriate
statutory remedy against Ext.P1 and P4, since the sale now
stands confirmed. From the impugned orders Ext.P1 and P4, a
statutory revision is maintainable as per Section 83 of the Kerala
Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 before the Commissioner of Land
Revenue. Since there is an effective alternate remedy available
the issue cannot be considered in this writ petition, unless he
exhaust such remedies. Therefore I am of the opinion that the
petitioner can be relegated to resort to such alternate remedy.
3. In the result the writ petition is disposed of directing
the petitioner to file revision petition before the Commissioner of
Land Revenue, as provided under Section 83 of the Act, against
Ext.P1 and P4 orders, within a period of two weeks from today.
If any such revision petition is filed, the same shall be considered
and disposed of by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, after
W.P.(C).26396/09 3
affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to
the 4th respondent, at the earliest, at any rate within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of such revision petition.
The petitioner is also at liberty to seek appropriate interim
orders from the Commissioner of Land Revenue for keeping in
abeyance further proceedings pursuant to the confirmation of
sale. However, in order to facilitate the petitioner to move
before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P1 and P4 is directed to be kept in abeyance for
a period of two months from today.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb