IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1650 of 2007()
1. K.T. KURUVILA, S/O. K.K.THOMAS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.L. BABY, AGED 48 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
3. THE DPEUTY COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
5. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.C.C.THOMAS
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :11/12/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.M.JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 1650 of 2007-E
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 11th day of December, 2007
JUDGMENT
K.M.Joseph, J.
The appellant is the 5th respondent in the writ petition. The
property of the appellant came to be sold in revenue sale for realisation of
abkari arrears. The writ petitioner was the purchaser of the properties. The
prayer in the writ petition was to declare that the petitioner is entitled for
confirmation of sale. The learned Single Judge has directed the official
respondents 1 to 4 to complete the proceedings in the sale which is the subject
matter of the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the 5th respondent filed the
appeal. In the course of the appeal, the Commissioner of Land Revenue has
proceeded to set aside the sale in favour of the writ petitioner by proceedings
dated 5-12-2007.
(2). In the light of the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land
Revenue dated 5-12-2007, which is placed before us by the learned Additional
Advocate General, we do not think that any further orders are necessary in this
appeal. It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the confirmation of sale, the
auction purchaser namely, the writ petitioner has been put in possession by the
Collector. In so far as the sale has been set aside, we deem it necessary in the
interest of justice that the appellant be put back in possession as the appellant
was deprived of the possession pursuant to the confirmation of sale which now
stands set aside. In such circumstances, there will be a direction to the second
respondent to resume the possession from the writ petitioner and put the
appellant in possession of the property. This process shall be completed within
W.A.No.1650/2007 -2-
a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner Sri. C.C.Thomas would submit
that in view of the fact that the sale has been set aside and also it has been
stated in the order that, should the auction purchasers demand the return of the
amount deposited by them the District Collector shall refund the same, the
amount deposited may be refunded within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
We therefore direct the second respondent to pay the entire amount deposited
by the writ petitioner towards the sale value within a period of two weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We also reserve liberty to the
auction purchaser to challenge the order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue
dated 5-12-2007 in the matter of interest.
(3). In view of the order passed in the writ appeal I.A.No.938 of
2007 is allowed.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE
MS