IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 3826 of 2009(E) 1. REETHA WILSON ... Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.ARUN VALENCHERY For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC Dated :05/02/2009 O R D E R ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.3826 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 5th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T
5.5 acres of land was put for revenue auction on 08/10/1992.
The petitioner bid the property for Rs.7,000/- and was the highest
bidder. It is stated that the sale was confirmed, and 1/4th of the
value, namely, Rs.1,750/- was remitted by her. It would appear that
subsequently, on 04/11/1992, the balance 3/4th amount was also
2. The petitioner states that the property was not
transferred and she claims to have made Ext.P1 representation dated
15/06/1993. According to her, there was no action, and therefore,
she made Ext.P2 dated 06/10/1996 requesting for transfer of title
and delivery of possession of the property. It would appear that
while so, the sale was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer on
07/08/1997. Ext.P7 proceedings show that before setting aside the
sale, notices were issued by the RDO and that these were not served
on the petitioner, and were returned.
3. However, on the setting aside of the sale as above, re-
auction was scheduled on 05/02/2000. At that stage, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.3837/2000. That
original petition was disposed of by Ext.P3 judgment dated
20/02/2006. As per the directions in the judgment, by Ext.P4, the
District Collector considered the matter and left it open to the
petitioner to file revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner.
4. It is stated that accordingly Ext.P6 revision was filed
against the order of the RDO setting aside the sale. The revision was
considered and by Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent rejected the revision.
It is challenging this proceedings, the writ petition is filed.
5. Evidently, 5.5 acres of agricultural land has been sold to
the petitioner in 1992, for a total value of Rs.7,000/-. Finding in
Ext.P7 order is that at present, the value of the land is Rs.9,200/-
per are. It is on that basis that the revisional authority held that the
value realised is very low. A reading of Ext.P7 also would reveal that
the revisional authority has found that the defaulter is a farmer, who
has taken a relatively small sum of money as loan, and the value of
the property is not proportionate. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the attempt is to return the land to the
defaulter. If that be the purpose and attempt, then also, do not find
anything wrong for the reason that poor farmer will otherwise be
loosing the land for not paying a small sum of money availed by
him. Therefore, I see nothing erroneous in the conclusion in Ext.P7
order passed by the 2nd respondent.
6. True, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to
me Ext.P5 order dated 30/06/1994 confirming the sale of the
property, which is stated to be situated in the neighbourhood of the
property bid by the petitioner. It may be true that such a
confirmation was made by the RDO itself, but then, unlike in this
case, sale was not set aside in the case mentioned in Ext.P5.
7. Having regard to the fact that the property bid by the
petitioner is found to be valuable one, and that the value realised is
disproportionate, I do not think that the writ petitioner has made
put a case for interference by this Court in a proceedings filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)