IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 38069 of 2007(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SIVAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN,KARAVATHIL HOUSE,PERINGANAM VILLAGE KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.JAYASOORIAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGANAM VILLAGE, P.O. PERINGANAM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR-680 003. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).38069/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner essentially challenges Ext.P5 order passed by the District Registrar construing Ext.P1 document as a conveyance, imposing a penalty on him under Section 39 (1)(b) of the Kearla Stamp Act, 1959. He also challenges Revenue Recovery notice (Ext.P3) issued for recovery of the amount imposed as penalty under Ext.P5 along with the amount treated as deficit stamp duty. 2. Learned Government Pleader, on instruction, submits that Ext.P5 order seems to have been passed as early as on 5.2.1999 and it is otherwise revisable by the Government or by the Land Revenue Commissioner who is authorized by the Government, in terms of Section 54 of the Act. This submission of the Government Pleader that Ext.P5 is revisable by the Land Revenue Commissioner and the Government is recorded. Government Pleader however, submits that though Ext.P5 W.P.(C).38069/2007 2 was sent to the address of the petitioner, it was returned with the endorsement ‘no such addressee’. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the view that the petitioner may avail of the alternate remedy available under the Stamp Act as pointed out by the Government Pleader. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a revision against Ext.P5 order. If it is so filed within one month from today, it shall be heard and disposed of by the revisional authority (either the Government or the Commissioner of the Land Revenue) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of revision. It is open to the petitioner to move the revisional authority for appropriate interim order as well. To enable the petitioner to do so, recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks. Petitioner submits that he had not taken steps earlier in relation to Ext.P5, because he was not served W.P.(C).38069/2007 3 with the copy of the same. Appropriate revisional authority shall definitely consider the said contention of the petitioner also while deciding the revision. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs