Loading...

Reetha Wilson vs State Of Kerala And Others on 5 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Reetha Wilson vs State Of Kerala And Others on 5 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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

remitted.

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-

WP(C) No.3826/2009
-2-

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

WP(C) No.3826/2009
-3-

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)
jg

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information