IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34221 of 2009(W)
1. JOSEPH K.C., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
... Respondent
2. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),
3. WILSON CHAKKAPPAN,
4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R.),
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.M.SAYED MUHAMMED, SC, KFC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.34221 OF 2009
------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
———————-
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order issued by the
5th respondent, through which a petition filed by him to set aside
a sale conducted by the 2nd respondent, was rejected.
Challenging the sale proceeding the petitioner had approached
this court on an earlier occasion, and through Ext.P6 judgment
this court had directed the petitioner to resort to remedy
available under Section 52 or 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery
Act. Accordingly the petitioner had approached the 5th
respondent seeking to set aside the sale, invoking Section 53 of
the Act. While repelling contentions raised in challenge of the
sale, the 5th respondent had observed that the petitioner can still
invoke remedy available under Section 52 of the Kerala Revenue
Recovery Act, on deposit of the bid amount along with 5%
addition and also the interest and costs. However, it is noticed
that challenge against the sale is based on allegation of
irregularity which will fall only within the purview of Section 53
of the Act.
2. While considering validity of Ext.P7, it is noticed that
W.P.(C).34221/09-W 2
the petitioner has got an effective remedy against the said order
by way of statutory revision, as provided under Section 83 of the
Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore I am of the opinion that
the petitioner can be relegated to such remedy available under
the statute.
3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing
the petitioner to file revision petition against Ext.P7 order,
before the appropriate authority and also to seek appropriate
interim relief from that authority. It is further directed that if
any such revision petition accompanied with any petition seeking
interim stay is filed, within a period of two weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the competent revisional
authority shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders,
either on the revision petition or on the interlocutory application
within a period of two weeks thereafter.
4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach before
the revisional authority, further proceedings for confirmation of
the sale in question shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one
month from today.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
okb