IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 14427 of 2008(P)
1. K.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.VESUAMMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHASILDAR,
3. ASSAINAR,THOZHALIL HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008
.........................................................................
Dated this the 29th November , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, who is a partner of a firm and an assessee
before the concerned Sales Tax authorities, owned an extent of
45 cents of land in the concerned village, which was sought to be
proceeded against at the instance of the said authorities for
realisation of a sum of ` 6,67,472/- due from the firm by name
‘Geetha Matches’. Though the sale was notified to be held on
28.11.2007, it did not take place on that date and was
adjourned to 13.12.2007, on which date, the property was bid by
the third respondent for a paltry sum of ` 80,000/-. Stating that
the sale was conducted clandestinely without proper notice and
further that the property was having very high market value
and that the sale of a portion of the property itself would satisfy
the entire liability, the petitioner preferred Ext. P1 application to
set aside the sale before the first respondent. But the first
respondent considered the matter and dismissed the same as per
Ext. P2 dated 20.02.2008, which in turn is under challenge in this
Writ Petition.
2. When the matter came up for consideration before this
W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008
2
Court on 09.05.2008, the following interim order was passed:
“Admit. Issue urgent notice to respondents
returnable in two weeks. There will be an interim
stay of the confirmation of the revenue sale in
favour of the 3rd respondent pursuant to Ext. P2
order in the event of the petitioner remitting a sum
of Rs.2 lakhs within 3 weeks from today with the
2nd respondent. It is made clear that if the sale
has already been confirmed, the delivery of the
property to the 3rd respondent shall stand stayed
subject , of course, to the fulfilment of the condition
specified above. “
3. Despite service of notice, nobody has entered
appearance on behalf of the third respondent, who is stated as
the successful bidder.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
and 2, this Court finds that the petitioner is very much having an
alternate remedy under Section 83 (1) of the Revenue Recovery
Act by filing a Revision before the Commissioner for Land
Revenue and if for any reason it goes against the petitioner, he is
having a further revisional remedy before the Government as
W.P.(C) No.14427 OF 2008
3
provided under Section 83(2) of the very same enactment.
5. In the said circumstance, this Court does not propose to
go into the merits of the case and the petitioner is relegated to
avail the said statutory remedy in accordance with law. Taking
note of the fact that the Writ Petition was admitted by this Court
and is pending from 09.05.2008, the petitioner is permitted to
file the statutory revision petition as above within ‘one month’
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. If any such
petition is filed, the same shall be treated as a valid petition filed
within time and the concerned authority shall consider the same
and pass appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of
hearing to all concerned; including the petitioner and the third
respondent, within a further period of ‘three months’ thereafter.
Status quo, as on today, shall continue till the proceedings are
finalised as above.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk