IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 7833 of 2011(D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.LATE T.T. NARAYANAN, SEETHA NIVAS, CHALAD AMSOM, KANNUR II VILLAGE, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL, SRI.N.M.MADHU, SMT.C.S.RAJANI. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR - 670 002. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR - 670 002. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7833 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Petitioner claims to be a widow aged 70 years. Her deceased husband was defaulter in payment of motor vehicle tax, for which revenue recovery steps were initiated. Immovable property having an extent of 68.5 cents, upon which the deceased husband was holding 1/4th share, was sold in auction pursuant to the revenue recovery steps, invoking Section 50 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act and the Government had bid auction the property for an amount of Re.1/-. According to the petitioner, she became aware about the proceedings only when the 2nd respondent took steps to demarcate 1/4th share in the property and to proceed with further steps. Subsequently she gathered information regarding the revenue recovery steps by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. However, she submitted Ext.P6 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting to cancel the sale on the basis of an offer that she will pay the entire amounts due to the Government. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioner is seeking appropriate direction from this court. 2. Heard; Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is submitted that all formalities and W.P.(C).7833/11 -2- procedure with respect to confirmation of sale has already been completed, and the sale now stands confirmed. As such it is pointed out that the 2nd respondent may not be having power to set aside the sale or to order re-conveyance of the property and therefore Ext.P6 representation is not sustainable, is the contention. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner can approach the State Government, who is the competent authority, seeking re-conveyance of the land on the basis of the offer made for payment of the arrears. It is for the Government to take a decision on the matter considering the various aspects. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inspite of the sale conducted, the property is still in the physical possession of the petitioner, and now attempts are there to dispossess the petitioner from the property. Under such premise, the petitioner seeks directions to order status quo with respect to possession of the land, in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Government, and to seek appropriate relief. 5. Considering various aspects attendant in this case, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served if the petitioner is given liberty to approach the Government, within a W.P.(C).7833/11 -3- time to be stipulated and till then to direct the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the physical possession of the property in question. 6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the concerned authority in the State Government with appropriate request for re-conveyance of the land. If any such approach is made within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and in accordance with the policy decisions of the Government in the matter. 7. In order to facilitate the petitioner to approach the Government as directed above, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo regarding physical possession of the property for a period of two months. It is left open to the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief in the matter from the concerned authority of the State Government, pending disposal of the matter before such authority. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb