IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29684 of 2008(H)
1. LALU JOHN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
4. THE THAHSILDAR
For Petitioner :SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :14/10/2008
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 29684 OF 2008 H
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Petitioner was a bidder at
revenue auction. The property was knocked down in his favour.
He remitted the entire bid amount. On the complaint that the sale
was not confirmed, he approached this court earlier and this court
by Ext.P6 judgment directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to pass
orders. As a result of that, Ext.P7 is passed. The RDO has refused
to confirm the sale.
2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. I feel that the
petitioner has a statutory remedy under section 83 of the Revenue
Recovery Act and the petitioner can be relegated to prefer revision.
But, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that resale may
take place in the meantime. In order to facilitate the petitioner to
avail the alternate remedy, it is ordered that resale on the basis of
Ext.P7 decision will be put on hold for a period of one month from
today and it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy under law.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
aks