IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29691 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAJEEB, KAIPPAKKAKATTY PADINJATTHIL, AMBALATHUM BHAGAM MURI, PORUVAYEE VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SUKUL KHADER SRI.PEARSON S.FERNANDEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUKKOLLAM 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 29691 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T 1. Petitioner is the auction purchaser of a property which was sold in public auction under the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968. According to the petitioner, the bid was confirmed in his favour with respect to immovable property having an extent of 19.12 Ares, for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. The petitioner had deposited the entire amount before the first respondent. But the second respondent had issued Ext. P3 order setting aside the sale on the ground that the upset price fixed for the sale was not in consonance with the market value and because of the fact that there was no proper publication of the sale. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 3rd respondent against Ext.P3 order. But the third respondent had rejected the same without entertaining, as evidenced by Ext.P5. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 in this writ petition. 2. On a perusal of the provisions contained in the statute it is revealed that the second respondent is the competent authority either to confirm or to set aside a sale. Ext.P3 is an order passed in exercise of W.P.(C) NO. 29691 OF 2009 2 jurisdiction vested on the second respondent. As per Section 83 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act 1968 the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy by way of statutory revision, against Ext.P3 order. Instead of invoking revisional jurisdiction of the competent authority, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 before the third respondent. Therefore Ext.P5 rejection cannot be assailed as invalid. 3. Having confronted with the above situation the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission of this court to move before the appropriate authority in revision. It is for the petitioner to file revision petition before the competent authority, if so advised, on seeking condonation of delay. If any such revision is filed along with petition seeking condonation of delay, it is for the competent authority to deal with the same. However, it is needless to observe that while considering petition if any filed seeking condonation of dealy in filing the revision, the said authority will take into consideration of the fact that the petitioner had submitted Ext.P4 complaint before the third respondent and that he had approached this court in this writ petition, and considerable time was spend in persuing such proceedings. W.P.(C) NO. 29691 OF 2009 3 4. In order to facilitate the petitioner to move before the statutory revisional authority, further proceedings for re-sale of the property, if not already conducted, shall be kept in abeyance for six weeks from today. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. pm W.P.(C) NO. 29691 OF 2009 4 W.P.(C) NO. 29691 OF 2009 5