IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4895 of 2010(J)
1. C.K.NABISSA, W/O.CHANGAMOOLAYIL KADHER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE THAHASILDAR (RR) KANAYANUR,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
4. K.B.SUBAIR, KULANGARA HOUSE,
5. THE CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF REVENUE,
For Petitioner :SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN
For Respondent :SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 17th February, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved of the steps taken by the
respondents in setting aside the sale deed standing in favour of
the petitioner and proceeding against the sale in the course of
the steps being pursued against the 4th respondent, who is
stated as the defaulter, after arriving at a finding that the
conveyance is hit by the relevant provisions of Section 44 (2) of
the Revenue Recovery Act.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property
concerned which originally belonged to the 4th respondent, who is
none other than the son-in-law of the petitioner was purchased
for valuable sale consideration of Rs. 40,000/- and the sale deed
was registered on 30.12.1999. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that it was much thereafter, that the
proceedings were pursued under the Revenue Recovery Act,
based on the requisition sent by the second respondent and
hence that the situation will never come within the purview of
Section 44 of the Act. It is also brought to the notice of this
W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010
2
Court that the matter was taken up by filing a Revision Petition
under Section 83(1) of the Revenue Recovery Act before the
Commissioner of Land Revenue, particularly in furtherance to
Ext.P4 judgment passed by this Court on an earlier occasion in
a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter
was considered by the Commissioner of Land Revenue, who
passed Ext.P5 order declining interference. It is stated that the
petitioner has filed a further Revision under Section 83(2) of the
Revenue Recovery Act by approaching the Government, as
borne by Ext.P6. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is
without any regard to the pendency of the said Revision and
also the Interlocutory Application for stay, that the respondents
are proceeding with coercive steps and hence are under
challenge.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent Nos.1,3 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for
the second respondent. Considering the limited extent of prayer
sought for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it
necessary to issue notice to the 4th respondent for the time
W.P.(C) No. 4895 OF 2010
3
being. However, the Government represented by the Prl.
Secretary, Revenue Department will stand suo motu impleaded
as Addl. 6th respondent. Heard the learned Government Pleader,
who entered appearance on behalf of the Addl. 6th respondent as
well.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Addl.6th
respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 Second Revision
Petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 83(2) of the Act
and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, of course,
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all
concerned. It is also made clear that till such final orders are
passed by the Addl. 6th respondent/Government, as above, all
further proceedings pursuant to the sale proposed to be
conducted tomorrow shall be kept in abeyance.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk